It’s so fucking obviously illegal when you think about it rationally for more than a few seconds. We aren’t even talking about “fair use” we are talking about how it works in practice which was Meta torrenting pirated books, never paying anyone a cent and straight up stealing the content at scale.
The fact you are even using the word stealing, is telling to your lack of knowledge in this field. Copyright infringement is not stealing[0]. The propaganda of the copyright cartel has gotten to you.
If we can agree that taking away of your time is theft (wage theft, to be precise), we as those who rely on intellect in our careers should be able to agree that the taking of our ideas is also theft.
>moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.
This just tells me that the definition is highly contentious. Having the supreme court reverse a federal ruling already shows misalignment.
I still feel like the point is useless, because at the end of the day, if some normal person went ahead and did the same thing the tech giant did, they would long be moved to a less comfortable new home, that has high security against breaking in. At the end of the day, the situation now is, that some are more equal than others, and it is unacceptable, yet, due to the mountains of (also unethically acquired) cash they have, they can get away with something a normal person cannot. Even the law might be bent to their will, because if suing them fails, it creates precedence.
If we end up saying it is not illegal, then I demand, that it will not be illegal for everyone. No double standards please. Let us all launder copyrighted material this way, labeling it "AI".
So when someone steals something from you, you no longer have it. Yet here they paid the judge(s) because the person who's been "robbed" still has their thing?
