There the similarities end. Ruling in Anthropic’s favor, senior district judge William Alsup argued on June 23 that the firm’s use of the books was legal because what it did with them was transformative, meaning that it did not replace the original works but made something new from them. “The technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes,” Alsup wrote in his judgment.
資深聯邦地區法官William Alsup於2025.06.23.言辯終結後判決Anthropic勝訴。人工智能公司利用書籍來訓練大型語言模型是合法的；人工智能公司的行為變形的，即它的行為並無取代原創著作，但是從原創著作創作新的著作。Alsup法官於判決中說道：系爭技術是我們之中有許多人於人生將可見即具變化形式的。
In Meta’s case, district judge Vince Chhabria made a different argument. He also sided with the technology company, but he focused his ruling instead on the issue of whether or not Meta had harmed the market for the authors’ work. Chhabria said that he thought Alsup had brushed aside the importance of market harm. “The key question in virtually any case where a defendant has copied someone’s original work without permission is whether allowing people to engage in that sort of conduct would substantially diminish the market for the original,” he wrote on June 25.
在Meta案，聯邦地區法官Vince Chhabria卻有不同之見解。他亦判決科技公司勝訴。但他的判決取而代之聚焦在Meta是否損及著作人著作市場。Chhabria說：他認為Alsup法官忽略損及市場重要性因素；是實上問題的癥結在於任何清況下被告未得原創作者同意而重製，是否允許人們從事此類會實質削弱原創市場收益與佔比行為。
And neither company is yet home free. Anthropic and Meta both face wholly separate allegations that not only did they train their models on copyrighted books, but the way they obtained those books was illegal because they downloaded them from pirated databases. Anthropic now faces another trial over these piracy claims. Meta has been ordered to begin a discussion with its accusers over how to handle the issue.
現在此兩公司尚未全身而退，Anthropic與Meta各自面臨訟爭，他們不僅利用有著作權書及來訓練模型，同時他們獲得書籍的方式亦是違法，因為他們從侵權的資料庫下載。Anthropics現在就從侵權的資料庫下載的行為面臨另一個訴訟。Meta被令與控訴Meta侵權者討論如何處理訟糾（即談和解）。