In an ongoing legal battle, Meta faces serious allegations of distributing pirated books via BitTorrent. A class-action lawsuit, filed by authors Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, accuses the tech giant of downloading millions of books from the shadow library LibGen and sharing them with third parties. Meta, however, denies any wrongdoing, asserting that it took measures to prevent the “seeding” of pirated content and arguing that torrenting itself is not inherently illegal.
The Growing AI Copyright Debate
Over the past few years, numerous lawsuits have been filed against AI companies for allegedly using copyrighted materials to train large language models (LLMs) without authorization. While some defendants claim fair use as a defense, courts continue to grapple with the complexities of these cases.
Meta, under Mark Zuckerberg’s leadership, has been targeted by multiple copyright infringement lawsuits related to its Llama AI models. Among them is this class-action suit, which goes beyond typical copyright infringement claims, accusing Meta of actively distributing pirated content.
Allegations of Pirated Book Sharing
The lawsuit asserts that Meta not only accessed copyrighted books from LibGen but also used BitTorrent to redistribute them, effectively turning the company into a piracy hub. The plaintiffs amended their complaint last month to include these accusations, emphasizing that torrenting inherently involves uploading data to other users.
According to the third amended complaint (TAC):
“Meta downloaded millions of pirated books from LibGen through the BitTorrent protocol using a platform called LibTorrent. Internally, Meta acknowledged that using this protocol was legally problematic.”
The lawsuit lists three key claims against Meta:
- Direct Copyright Infringement
- Removal of Copyright Management Information
- Violation of California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA)
Meta’s Defense: No Proof of ‘Seeding’
In its motion to dismiss, Meta argues that the plaintiffs’ claims lack merit, particularly the allegations surrounding torrenting. While acknowledging the downloads, Meta insists that there is no evidence proving it “seeded” files to other users. The company claims to have taken specific precautions to prevent unauthorized sharing.
Meta states in its legal response:
“Plaintiffs push a narrative that ignores evidence in their possession, including a detailed expert report, showing that Meta took precautions not to ‘seed’ any downloaded files.”
While these precautions do not necessarily eliminate all legal risks, Meta contends that, without concrete evidence of distribution, the lawsuit’s claims should be dismissed.
Torrenting: Legal or Illegal?
Meta also disputes the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the law regarding torrenting. The company argues that California’s CDAFA statute is an “anti-intrusion” law, and since it only downloaded publicly available files from LibGen, no legal violations occurred. Furthermore, Meta maintains that BitTorrent is simply a technology used for transferring files and is not inherently unlawful.
“Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, there is nothing ‘independently illegal’ about torrenting on its own. Torrenting is merely a means of enabling users to download (i.e., copy) files.”
The ‘Leeching’ Controversy
While Meta stands firm in its defense, the authors behind the lawsuit argue that the company may have engaged in ‘leeching’—a process where a user downloads data but does not upload it until a full copy is obtained. If Meta indeed shared pirated books during this phase, it could still constitute an infringement.
This legal gray area adds complexity to the case. Courts may need to determine whether leeching, as opposed to seeding, still qualifies as unauthorized distribution.
Conclusion
This lawsuit is among the most significant in the broader debate over AI, copyright, and digital content distribution. It raises critical questions about the legality of torrenting, the responsibilities of AI companies handling copyrighted materials, and whether indirect distribution of pirated content can be classified as infringement.
As the case progresses, its outcome could have far-reaching implications, potentially shaping legal precedents for how AI companies access and use copyrighted content in the future.