AI copyright news, graded by source

Magistrate judge: authors and publishers suing Meta need not spell out, book by book, their market harm, which right is at issue, or the facts of Meta's alleged torrent uploading

Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson ruled on Meta's motions to compel fuller interrogatory answers from Chicken Soup for the Soul, Cognella, and Cambronne Inc. and three individual authors. He denied Meta's requests for more detailed answers on market harm, calling the level of detail Meta sought unreasonable. He accepted the plaintiffs' statement that they cannot yet say, work by work, which exclusive right is at issue; their answers said Meta has not identified which works it acquired or from where. He also denied more detail on the alleged uploading to third parties during torrenting and on contributory infringement, noting the plaintiffs gave what they know and said they lack much of what Meta asked for. The anthology and textbook publishers do not have to detail ownership contributor by contributor; the court said a story-by-story ownership trial "would make the Trojan War look short." The individual authors, with only a handful of books, must give the basic facts of who created and owns them and non-privileged information on how they learned of the alleged infringement. Some licensing and sales-channel answers must be supplemented. Amended responses are due in 30 days.