The judge says that the issue of publishing rights from artificial intelligence in Mita revolves around “Taylor Swift next”

Dead A copyright battle With a group of authors, including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, it will manage the issue of whether the company’s AI tools can be busy sales of the authors’ books.

The American Partial Court judge, Vince Chapria, spent several hours in interrogating lawyers from both sides after each of them submitted requests for partial brief ruling, which means that they want to rule Chapria in specific cases of the case instead of leaving each one in the trial. The authors claim that Meta used their work illegally to build obstetric intelligence tools, while emphasizing that the company collected their books through “shadow libraries” like Libgen. The social media giant does not deny that he used the work or that She downloaded books from shadow libraries Ar Masse, but he insists on that His behavior is protected Through the “fair use” doctrine, an exception in the law of copyright in the United States allows use without permission to work in public copyright in some cases, including satirical simulation, teaching and news reports.

If Chibria is given either a proposal, it will issue a ruling before the case goes to the trial – and it is likely to put an important precedent to form how the courts deal with publishing rights cases from artificial intelligence. Kadrey v. Meta He is one of Dozens of lawsuits It was presented against artificial intelligence companies that pass through the American legal system.

While the authors were focusing heavily on the piracy component in the case, Chapria categorically talked about his belief that the big question is whether the Meta tools of artificial intelligence would harm book sales and cause the authors to lose. “If you change greatly, you may even say that the business market of this person, and you say that you do not even have to pay a license for this person to use his work to create the product that destroys the market for its work – I just don’t understand how this fair use can be.” (Shanamojam replied that the proposed effect was “just speculation.”)

Chapria and Shanamogham continued to discuss whether Taylor Swift would harm if her music was fed in the Amnesty International tool that created billions of automatic recipients. Chapria wondered how this will affect the authors of the least influential songs. “What about the next Taylor Swift?” He asked, on the pretext that “a relatively unknown artist” was likely to hinder Meta’s work if the model produced “pop billion” in her style.

Sometimes, it seemed as if the case was that the authors were losing, as Chapria indicated that Mita was “able to fail” if the prosecutors were able to prove that Meta tools created similar works that exceed the amount of money they could earn from their work. But Chapria also confirmed that he was not convinced that the authors will be able to show the necessary evidence. When he turned to the legal team of the authors, led by prominent lawyer David Boys, he asked Chapria repeatedly whether the plaintiffs could prove accusations that AI of the dead AI is likely to hurt their commercial prospects. He told Boies: “It seems that you are asking me to speculate that Sarah Silverman’s memoirs will be affected.” “It is not clear to me this is the case.”