臺灣真的很遜，像這樣AI公司與著作權人爭訟的案子，一個都沒有或少得可憐。
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，而是從原創著作轉換為新的著作。Alsup法官於判決中說道：系爭技術是我們之中有許多人於其人生將可見即具轉化形式的。
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；事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）。

So where does that leave us? As the first rulings to come out of cases of this type, last week’s judgments will no doubt carry enormous weight. But they are also the first rulings of many. Arguments on both sides of the dispute are far from exhausted.
等等，爭議還懸而未決。

“These cases are a Rorschach test in that either side of the debate will see what they want to see out of the respective orders,” says Amir Ghavi, a lawyer at Paul Hastings who represents a range of technology companies in ongoing copyright lawsuits. He also points out that the first cases of this type were filed more than two years ago: “Factoring in likely appeals and the other 40+ pending cases, there is still a long way to go before the issue is settled by the courts.”

“I’m disappointed at these rulings,” says Tyler Chou, founder and CEO of Tyler Chou Law for Creators, a firm that represents some of the biggest names on YouTube. “I think plaintiffs were out-gunned and didn’t have the time or resources to bring the experts and data that the judges needed to see.”
 

But Chou thinks this is just the first round of many. Like Ghavi, she thinks these decisions will go to appeal. And after that we’ll see cases start to wind up in which technology companies have met their match: “Expect the next wave of plaintiffs—publishers, music labels, news organizations—to arrive with deep pockets,” she says. “That will be the real test of fair use in the AI era.”

But even when the dust has settled in the courtrooms—what then? The problem won’t have been solved. That’s because the core grievance of creatives, whether individuals or institutions, is not really that their copyright has been violated—copyright is just the legal hammer they have to hand. Their real complaint is that their livelihoods and business models are at risk of being undermined. And beyond that: when AI slop devalues creative effort, will people’s motivations for putting work out into the world start to fall away?

In that sense, these legal battles are set to shape all our futures. There’s still no good solution on the table for this wider problem. Everything is still to play for.