The blogger’s content was freely available, this fine is for piracy.

This is not a fine, it's a settlement to recompense authors.

More broadly, I think that's a goofy argument. The books were "freely available" too. Just because something is out there, doesn't necessarily mean you can use it however you want, and that's the crux of the debate.

	▲	ascorbic 7 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's not the crux of this case. This is a settlement based on the judge's ruling that they books had been illegally downloaded. The same judge said that the training itself was not the problem – it was downloading the pirated books. It will be tough to argue that loading a public website is an illegal download.
	▲	emtel 7 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		But you can use copyrighted works for transformative works under the fair-use doctrine, and training was ruled to be fair use in the previous ruling.