San Francisco: A federal judge biased to dismiss the copyright violation case from a group of authors with Facebook parent meta platforms, who accused the company of stealing their works to train their artificial intelligence technology. On Wednesday, the decision from US District Judge Vins Sixbriya was second from the federal court of San Francisco, which dismissed the major copyright claims from book writers against the fast -developed AI industry. Chhabriya found that 13 authors who prosecuted Meta “made false arguments” and threw the case. But the judge also said that the ruling case is limited to writers and does not mean that the use of copyright content of meta is valid. “This ruling does not stand for the proposal that the use of meta copyright content is valid to train its language model,” Chhabriya wrote. “It only stands for the proposal that these plaintiff made incorrect arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right.” Lawyers for the plaintiff, a group of famous authors including comedians Sara silverman and writer Jacqueline Woodson and Ta-Nehi Kotts, said in a statement that “the court ruled that AI companies have worked to work in their models without permission from copyright holders. The court gave a verdict on the top of the work. We disagree with that conclusion. , Meta said that it appreciates the decision. The California company, California company said in a statement, “Open Source AI model transformative innovation, productivity and creativity are giving power to individuals and companies, and proper use of copyright content is an important legal framework for the creation of this transformative technique.” Although the Meta became strong in its request to dismiss the case, it could be a pyramic win. In its 40 -page judgment, Chhabriya repeatedly indicated the reasons for assuming that meta and other AI companies have turned into serial copyright violations as they train their technology on books and other works made by humans, and were inviting other writers to bring cases to their courts that would allow them to move forward. The judge argued that AI companies need to follow decades -old copyright laws, which would slow down advances in an important time in a significant time. “These products are expected to generate trillion dollars for billions, even trillion dollars for companies. If using copyright work to train the model is as important as companies say, they will find a way to compensate for copyright holders for this., On Monday, from the same courtyard, US District Judge William Alsup ruled that AI company Anthropic did not break the law by training its chatbot cloud on millions of copyright books, but the company should still test to test those books from pirate websites instead of buying them. But the actual process of the AI ​​system is capable of producing its own path of qualified text as “proper use” for distilling from thousands of written functions. Copyright law because it was “Quinticely Transformative”, Alsup wrote. In the Meta case, the authors argued in the court filing that the meta is “responsible for large -scale copyright violations” by taking their books from online repository of pirated works to Mata’s chief AI system Lama and carrying their books. Long and uniquely written passages of the lesson, such as found in books, are highly useful to teach generative AI chatbots to the pattern of human language. Lawyers of the authors argued, “Meta and payment should have been paid” to buy and license those literary works, the authors’ lawyers argued. Meta stated in court filing that the US copyright law “allows the unauthorized copy of a work to be converted into something new” and that the new, AI -generated expression that comes out of its chatbots is fundamentally different from books on which it was trained. Meta lawyers argued, “After almost two years of litigation, there is still no evidence that someone has ever used the Lama as an alternative to read the plaintiffs, or what they could also do,” Meta lawyers argued. Meta says that the Lama will not produce the actual tasks that it has copied, even to do so. Its lawyers wrote, “No one can use the Lama to read the childhood details of the Silverman, or a Dominican boy’s Juneot Diaz in New Jersey.” Meta, accused of pulling those books online from the “shadow libraries”, has also argued that its use methods “have no effect on the nature and purpose of its use” and this would have the same result if the company signed a deal with real libraries. Such deals are how Google produced its online Google books of over 20 million books, although it faced the legal challenges of a decade before the US Supreme Court in 2016, which was rejected by claims of copyright violations. The authors’ case against Meta has removed CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and has revealed internal interactions in the company, which has long been attracted to tapping morality in the pirated database. “The authorities regularly shut down their domains and even prosecuted the culprits,” the writers of the writers argued in a court. “This meta knew that taking copyright tasks from the pirated database could be beyond the high risk to the company, it is beyond the dispute: it triggers an increase to mark Zuckerberg and other meta officers for approval. Their gambling should not be paid.” Nominated Wadi Jacqueline Woodson, Richard Kadre, Andrew Scene Greir, Rachel Lewis Snider, David Henry Hwang, Ta Nehis Quotes, Laura Lipman, Matthew Clame, Juneot Diaz, Sara Silverman, Lisa Terracurust, Christopher Golden and Christopher Farnavarth. Chhabriya said in the judgment that when he had “no choice”, but in the case of summary decision of Meta, “In a grand plan of things, the results of this ruling are limited. It is not a class action, so the ruling only affects the rights of these 13 authors – not countless others whose work is used.”