INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
It could certainly look worse for Meta if authors manage to present evidence supporting the second way that torrenting could be relevant to
the case, Chhabaria suggested."Meta downloading copyrighted material from shadow libraries" would also be relevant to the character of the
use, "if it benefitted those who created the libraries and thus supported and perpetuated their unauthorized copying and distribution of
copyrighted works," Chhabria wrote.Counting potential strikes against Meta, Chhabria pointed out that the "vast majority of cases" involving
"this sort of peer-to-peer file-sharing" are found to "constitute copyright infringement." And it likely doesn't help Meta's case that "some
of the libraries Meta used have themselves been found liable for infringement."However, Meta may overcome this argument, too, since book
authors "have not submitted any evidence" that potentially shows how Meta's downloading may perhaps be "propping up" or financially
tried to argue that these elements were distinct
But Chhabria said there's no separating the fact that Meta downloaded the books to serve the "highly transformative" purpose of training
wrote.Authors only learned of Meta's torrenting through discovery in the lawsuit, and because of that, Chhabria noted that "the record on
network" by providing significant computing power that could've meaningfully assisted shadow libraries, Chhabria said in a footnote.
