this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
34 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

38856 readers
541 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has won the backing of a judge in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of authors, in the second legal victory for the US artificial intelligence industry this week.

The writers, who included Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, had argued that the Facebook owner had breached copyright law by using their books without permission to train its AI system.

The ruling follows a decision on Monday that Anthropic, another major player in the AI field, had not infringed authors’ copyright.

The US district judge Vince Chhabria, in San Francisco, said in his decision on the Meta case that the authors had not presented enough evidence that the technology company’s AI would dilute the market for their work to show that its conduct was illegal under US copyright law.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The US district judge Vince Chhabria, in San Francisco, said in his decision on the Meta case that the authors had not presented enough evidence that the technology company’s AI would dilute the market for their work to show that its conduct was illegal under US copyright law.

Why is this not the same bar for people who got busted on Napster back in the day, or torrents more recently?

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because laws truly don’t matter anymore. The veneer that everyone is accountable to the same law is fully off now.

[–] onlooker@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fully agree. Culpability is dead.

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Go out and commit a crime.

[–] onlooker@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nah thanks, I prefer to commit crimes at home.

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

That is fine. As long as you do a crime.

[–] JokerCharlie@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago

I know it shouldn’t come as a surprise, but the decision is infuriating. The rich get richer and the government backs them up. Can’t have their stock value drop otherwise they’d lose money.

i hate all tech bros and ai bros so much

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Guys wtf. You are all angry about something the court literally addresses in his ruling. Please always read the full rulings.

Ruling available at https://tmsnrt.rs/4li7P10