“This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful,” Chhabria said. “It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one.”
Well, no. If I sue you for defamation and provide evidence that you kick puppies for fun. The ruling doesn’t prove that kicking puppies for fun is ok or that you didn’t commit defamation, just that I have a bad lawyer.
I think the Facebook thing where they downloaded massive torrent of books but it wasn’t piracy because “they didn’t seed”
That’s not what happened.
Why don’t you tell us what happened, then?
Here’s an article about the case in question.
Still quite a bullshit ruling.
Well, no. If I sue you for defamation and provide evidence that you kick puppies for fun. The ruling doesn’t prove that kicking puppies for fun is ok or that you didn’t commit defamation, just that I have a bad lawyer.
It’s still bullshit.
Would you prefer that judges rule however they prefer even with no evidence to support the ruling was presented?
I’d prefer that you understood what “bullshit” means