That judgement is far from the final nail in the coffin according to the article you just linked. Though it may well be a part of the reason why rights holders are being cautious and presumably gathering evidence for for damages rather than to press on with additional litigation.

▲

terminalshort a day ago | parent [-]

You don't understand what summary judgment is. Summary judgment means that there is no dispute of the facts of the case. In other words, the AI companies admitted that they did exactly the thing the plaintiffs accused them of doing. The problem, for the plaintiffs, is that the action they accused the AI companies of is, in fact, perfectly legal. There is no amount of evidence to gather that can change this simple fact. Furthermore, damages are irrelevant here because the case was not thrown out because of a lack of damages. It was thrown out because the defendant didn't break the law at all.

▲

marginalia_nu a day ago | parent [-]

> Even if LLM training is fair use, AI companies face potential liability for unauthorized copying and distribution. The extent of that liability and any damages remain unresolved.

- The article you linked

▲

terminalshort a day ago | parent [-]

No shit. If they violate copyright law they will be punished for it. A statement so obvious that it isn't even worth saying. What has been decided is that training LLMs does not violate copyright law.

▲

marginalia_nu a day ago | parent [-]

Right, but you've moved the goal post and limited it to only a subset of the things the AI companies are doing that might get them sued.

	▲	terminalshort a day ago \| parent [-]
		That was the original goalpost. Whether AI training is fair use is a new legal question. Stealing the copyrighted data that you use for training is obviously illegal and nobody has ever claimed that it isn't so it's not even worth discussing and has absolutely nothing to do with AI.