Meta 被令披露授权盗版书籍训练 AI 的高管，被指让下载种子文件的员工背锅

Manage your consent preferences

If you are a resident of Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia, Utah, Oregon, Texas, Montana, Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and New Jersey, Tennessee, Minnesota, Maryland, Indiana, Kentucky, or Rhode Island you have the right to opt-out of Targeted Advertising, including our “sale” and/or “sharing” of your Personal Information (“Opt-Out”). We and our third-party business partners use Personal Information in accordance with our Privacy Policy to serve advertising believed to be of interest to you (“Targeted Advertising”). If you are a California resident, you also have the right to limit the use and disclosure of your Sensitive Personal information in particular circumstances. Please note that you may need to Opt-Out on each website, mobile app, browser, and device you use, and if you clear your browser cookies, you may need to repeat this process. However, if you have created an account to log in across several of our websites and/or mobile apps, we will make reasonable efforts to apply your Opt-Out request to each of those websites and apps. ◦ To Opt-Out of Targeted Advertising on this site: Move the “Allow Targeted Advertising" toggle below to the left and press “Confirm My Choices”◦ To Opt-Out of other “sales”, including for list rentals, data co-ops, and to limit the use and disclosure of your Sensitive Personal Information: Please email privacy_administration@condenast.com or call 1-877-241-4999.

Essential

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.

Audience Measurement

We use audience measurement cookies in order to carry out aggregated traffic measurement and generate performance statistics essential for the proper functioning of the site and the provision of its content (for example to measure performance, to detect navigation problems, to optimization technical performance or ergonomics, to estimate server power needed and to analyse content performance). The use of these cookies is strictly limited to measuring the site's audience. These cookies do not allow the tracking of navigation on other websites and the data collected is not combined or shared with third parties. You can refuse the use of this cookie by switching off the slider to the right.

Functional

This website uses functional cookies and services to remember your preferences and choices, such as language preferences, font sizes, region selections, and customized layouts. They enable this website to offer enhanced and personalized functionalities.

Social Media

These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.

Allow Sale/Targeted Advertising?

We may transfer or share your personal information to third parties for the purposes of targeted advertising. You can learn more about what information is used for this purpose in our privacy notice.

Confirm My Choices Reject All Accept All

Consent powered by Ethyca

Skip to content Ars Technica home

Sections

Forum Subscribe Search

Forum Subscribe

Story text

Size Width * Links

Subscribers only
Learn more

Pin to story

Theme

HyperLight
Day & Night
Dark
System

We’re all wondering who did this

Meta tries to scapegoat staff who downloaded torrents to spare execs

Meta argues nobody “decided” to pirate books to train AI.

Ashley Belanger – Oct 20, 2026 5:40 PM|90

Credit: JOAO LUIZ BULCAO / Contributor | AFP

Text settings

Story text

Size Width * Links

Subscribers only
Learn more

Minimize to nav

In copyright lawsuits over AI training, Meta has spent weeks blaming staff for downloading torrents. The company has now been ordered to name executives who authorized decisions to pirate books from shadow libraries like Anna’s Archive and LibGen, TorrentFreak reported.

In a discovery order impacting a class action raised by book authors—including Richard Kadrey and Sarah Silverman—as well as a lawsuit from publisher Entrepreneur Media, Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixon largely agreed that Meta must clearly identify key decision-makers. Following testimony from Meta staff who downloaded torrents, the order could expose a wider range of supervisors, managers, and executives whom staffers said greenlit the piracy.

Meta had been hoping to avoid detailing the chain of command, particularly for leadership involved in early AI training. According to a Meta court filing, its initial efforts to compile massive AI datasets were managed through an “informal approach” where supposedly nobody with authority made any decisions. Instead, Meta insisted that a “decision” was “made only in the sense” that some staffers “technically” downloaded torrents.

Zuckerberg could be roped in

Authors and publishers have argued that Meta made a willful choice to induce infringement by downloading and illegally distributing their copyrighted works. Since torrenting depends on a swarm of users, Meta could not have quickly downloaded 80.6 terabytes of data from LibGen or 35.7 terabytes through Anna’s Archive if the company wasn’t also seeding, authors have argued. (Meta has argued that it relied on “mitigations” to prevent seeding.)

Ars Video

How Lighting Design In The Callisto Protocol Elevates The Horror

Meta’s efforts to scapegoat staff seem to ignore that staff expressed discomfort in being directed to pirate work. In the past year, authors’ lawsuits have exposed internal messages in which staff pushed back or rejected directions on torrenting, including one worker who commented that “torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right.” Another staffer testified that he initiated downloads that “required some director or VP level approval to use for training,” a joint letter from Entrepreneur Media and Meta noted. There was also a time when leadership halted, then resumed, downloading torrents sourced from Anna’s Archive, another staffer testified. And while Meta has argued that communications that might identify who specifically authorized certain torrenting instances are privileged, at least one string of unredacted messages unsealed early last year allegedly showed that the decision to download from LibGen, for example, occurred after “a prior escalation to MZ” (Mark Zuckerberg).

“Approval was thus required; Meta’s answer is that none occurred,” Entrepreneur Media argued in the letter. Accepting Meta’s “construction” that “no one at Meta decided to torrent anything” ignores that “Meta torrented shadow libraries repeatedly from 2022-2024,” they told the court, while alleging gaps in Meta’s arguments.

Under a contributory infringement claim, all authors need to prove is that Meta facilitated transfers of their works. Hixon’s order arguably brings them the closest to smoking gun evidence they’ve gotten yet, additionally compelling Meta to finally produce long-sought “command history files for every server Meta used to torrent, including its virtual machines and AWS instances,” as TorrentFreak previously covered. Those log files could give authors the evidence they need to prove that Meta seeded certain works. It could also reveal more about Meta’s alleged seeding “mitigation” methods.

Meta fails to sway court

Authors and publishers asked Meta to identify “each natural person who made, authorized, or approved any decision to obtain or download any Shadow Library Dataset containing” their works. For every person identified, authors asked Meta to provide their “dates of involvement and which decision he or she made, authorized, or approved, as to which dataset.” Otherwise, they asked Meta to make a statement under oath that Meta identified no one, Hixon’s order said.

In the joint letter, Meta claimed that plaintiffs were demanding that it “canvas every Meta employee who knew about the use of BitTorrent,” including anyone who ever spoke of torrenting. The tech giant seemingly did everything it could to scale back the discovery request, including contesting the way that plaintiffs described “identify” and “decision.” Meta seemed particularly cagey about identifying anyone who decided to seed the disputed works.

Responding to a request for information on uploads, Meta claimed that it “is not currently aware of any persons who made, authorized, or approved any decision to upload or distribute any ‘Shadow Library Dataset.” According to Meta, that should settle that, since Entrepreneur Media’s “dissatisfaction with that response does not mean that there is further information to provide here—there is none.”

Going further, Meta accused Entrepreneur Media of “speculation,” claiming there is “no basis” for suspecting that “someone at Meta must have ‘approved’ a ‘decision’ to perform a seeding activity that specific mitigations were deployed to avoid.”

Instead of naming staff and providing specifics like their “role, approximate dates of involvement,” and “whether the person made or contributed to the decision and/or authorized, ratified, directed, permitted, or approved it,” Meta suggested that it only provide names. (Hixon disagreed that would be appropriate.)

To avoid naming executives, Meta explained that it wasn’t common practice for leadership to make “formal” decisions when acquiring datasets for early AI training on models like Llama 1 and 2. Only later on, Meta claimed, did that “initial informal approach” give “way to more structured review and approval processes.”

Not buying Meta’s arguments, Hixon said that authors did not limit their request to formal decisions, while agreeing that Meta must do more to answer questions about who “made, authorized, or approved any decision to obtain or download the shadow libraries.”

Another tactic Meta used was to claim that torrenting approvals came from “collaborative” talks, so there isn’t “a single decision-maker.” Again, Hixon suggested Meta was reading the authors’ request too narrowly. Their motion did “not presume that Meta had a single decision maker; it asks about all the decision makers,” Hixon said.

Finally, Meta must also answer questions about what happened to pirated works that were not used for AI training, Hixon said.

Meta and Entrepreneur Media’s lawyer did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

Ashley BelangerSenior Policy Reporter

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

90 Comments

Comments

Forum view

Loading comments...