Pull to refresh
Logo
Judge orders Meta to name employees who approved torrenting pirated books

Judge orders Meta to name employees who approved torrenting pirated books

Rule Changes

Court rules group decisions count: everyone who approved Anna's Archive and LibGen downloads must be named

2 days ago: Judge orders Meta to name all torrenting decision-makers

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

A federal magistrate judge ordered Meta to name every employee who made, authorized, or approved its use of BitTorrent to download book collections from shadow libraries for AI training. The October 19 order covers group decisions too: if a team agreed to the download, all participants must be identified.

The order comes in copyright suits from authors including Richard Kadrey and Sarah Silverman, plus publisher Entrepreneur Media. A judge already ruled training on the books was fair use, so the fight now centers on whether Meta's torrents also distributed works to others—seeding that could be contributory infringement. Meta must also hand over server logs showing how its torrent clients were configured.

Why it matters

If Meta's torrent seeding is held to be infringement, AI firms that grabbed training data via BitTorrent could face the same liability.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

162.3 TB
Books authors claim Meta torrented
At least 81.7 TB through Anna's Archive plus 80.6 TB from LibGen, per plaintiffs' February 2025 statement.
3
Employees named in Meta's first sworn answers
Al-Dahle, Edunov, and Pineau were named for LibGen; Edunov also for Anna's Archive; nobody for Books3.
2022–2024
Years Meta torrented shadow libraries
Entrepreneur Media's brief says Meta 'torrented shadow libraries repeatedly from 2022-2024.'

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

People Involved

Organizations Involved

Timeline

2023 October 2026

5 events Latest: 2 days ago
Tap a bar to jump to that date

Scenarios

1

Meta names more employees — or swears it can't

Likely Resolves by Nov 30, 2026

Discussed by: Authors' counsel and Entrepreneur Media, who sought the order

Meta must answer interrogatory 22 naming every person who made, authorized, or approved the torrenting decisions, including everyone in group decisions. If senior figures beyond the three already named surface, authors get sworn testimony tying specific executives to the downloads. If Meta instead swears no one else decided, plaintiffs can depose the named executives anyway.

2

Meta challenges the discovery order

Possible Resolves by End of 2026

Discussed by: Meta's counsel, which has resisted naming executives

Meta argued decisions were informal and collaborative, and said it knew of no one who approved uploads or distribution. It could object to Hixson's ruling, seek a protective order, or ask the district judge to review under the Federal Rules. A challenge would delay answers and could narrow the order's scope.

3

BitTorrent seeding claims head to trial or settle

Uncertain Resolves by End of 2027

Discussed by: Court filings in the Kadrey and Entrepreneur Media cases

The fair-use ruling left only the distribution claims alive. Server logs and named decision-makers could let authors show Meta seeded works to other torrent users, supporting contributory infringement. A summary judgment ruling, settlement, or trial on those claims would decide whether torrenting training data carries copyright liability.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

2001

A&M Records v. Napster (2001)

Napster let millions share MP3 files peer-to-peer, both uploading and downloading copyrighted songs. The Ninth Circuit held Napster liable for contributory and vicarious infringement, rejecting the fair-use defense Napster raised for its users.

Then

Napster shut down and settled with record labels, paying millions in damages.

Now

The ruling established that platforms enabling file sharing can be liable even when they don't host files, drawing a line between private copying and public distribution.

Why this matters now

Meta's torrenting involves the same uploading (seeding) versus downloading distinction the Napster court weighed, and contributory infringement is the claim authors now press against Meta.

October 2015

Authors Guild v. Google (2015)

Google scanned millions of library books without permission to build its search index and display snippets. The Second Circuit ruled the scanning was transformative fair use, rejecting the authors' case.

Then

Google kept its book search; the authors' damages claims failed.

Now

The case became the anchor precedent that large-scale copying of books can be fair use when the purpose is transformative.

Why this matters now

Judge Chhabria's June 2025 ruling that Meta's training on books was fair use drew on this tradition, which is why only the BitTorrent distribution claims remain.

March 2023

Hachette v. Internet Archive (2023)

The Internet Archive scanned physical books and lent them digitally through controlled digital lending, arguing it was fair use. A district court ruled against it, finding the lending harmed publishers' ebook markets; the Second Circuit affirmed in 2024.

Then

The Internet Archive removed the contested books from lending.

Now

The ruling narrowed where fair use protects mass copying of entire works.

Why this matters now

It shows courts scrutinize the purpose of mass copying, and the seeding claims ask whether Meta's distribution to other torrent users crosses the fair-use line that protected its training.

Sources

(9)