The authors, however, think that torrenting pirated works is so notoriously illegal that they now have an “open-and-shut case” of copyright infringement.
“Meta’s reproduction of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Books without permission, including through peer-to-peer file sharing, is not fair use,” the authors alleged, citing a major court ruling against Napster and insisting that “Meta infringed each of their copyrights, full stop.”
Chhabria may be curious to learn more about leeching, though. Last month, he admitted at a hearing that the term was foreign to him, Meta’s letter said in a footnote.
“I don’t remember hearing it before,” Chhabria said.
The authors are hoping to make Meta pay after Meta allegedly shirked offers to license their data for a fee.
“Meta plainly attributed significant value to the copyrighted works it took for free: a windfall to Meta, but not for authors, who were paid nothing,” the authors alleged. Further, “Whether another user actually downloaded the content that Meta made available” through torrenting “is irrelevant,” the authors alleged. “Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.”
Meta resists request to depose Zuckerberg
The authors want Chhabria to agree that Meta’s alleged leeching is key to winning their case. Their filing even pointed out that Meta’s pirating included copies of books written by at least 10 Supreme Court justices, seemingly hoping the judge will see that Meta’s activity harms more than just authors.
To further their case, the authors had asked for additional discovery requiring Meta to provide written answers about their torrenting and leeching. They also sought to depose both Meta employees who previously testified, including Mark Zuckerberg, as well as those whose roles in Meta’s torrenting, they suggested, were only recently clarified in unsealed emails.
