A recent Supreme Court ruling may have given Meta a chance to avoid liability claims over its use of torrenting for AI training data. The social media giant is hoping to use this ruling to its advantage in two lawsuits, one filed by Entrepreneur Media and another by a group of book authors in the case Kadrey v. Meta. The authors' lawsuit alleges that Meta's torrenting of AI training data, which included perhaps 80 terabytes of pirated works, makes the company liable for direct copyright infringement. However, a judge has ruled that a contributory infringement claim can be added to the class action case, which could be detrimental to Meta as it only requires proof that the company facilitated torrent transfers.
The contributory infringement claim is considered easier to prove than the direct copyright infringement claim, as it does not require evidence that Meta torrented an entire work. Instead, it depends on proving that Meta knew how torrenting works and induced infringement by allowing uploads to speed up its downloads. Meta has filed a statement in the Entrepreneur Media lawsuit, arguing that the Supreme Court's ruling in the Cox case clarifies the standards for contributory infringement in a way that benefits the company. The social media giant plans to file a supplemental brief explaining why the ruling supports its motion to dismiss the case.
The fact that Meta is relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Cox case to avoid liability claims highlights the complexity of copyright laws in the digital age. Meta's strategy may ultimately depend on the courts' interpretation of the ruling and its application to the company's use of torrenting for AI training data. If the courts rule in Meta's favor, it could set a precedent for other tech companies to follow. This case has significant implications for the tech industry, as it could impact how companies use and share data online.
