> But there is the issue of whether there are damages.
Not if there isn't infringement. Infringement is a question that precedes damages, since "damages" are only those harms that are attributable to the infringement. And infringement is an act, not an object.
If training a general use LLM on books isn't infringement (as this decision holds), then there by definition cannot be damages stemming from it; the amount of the source material that the model file "contains" doesn't matter.
It might matter to whether it is possible for a third party to easily use the model for something that would be infringement on the part of the third party, but that would become a problem for people who use it for infringement, not the model creator, and not for people who simply possess a copy of the model. The model isn't "an infringing object".
Not if there isn't infringement. Infringement is a question that precedes damages, since "damages" are only those harms that are attributable to the infringement. And infringement is an act, not an object.
If training a general use LLM on books isn't infringement (as this decision holds), then there by definition cannot be damages stemming from it; the amount of the source material that the model file "contains" doesn't matter.
It might matter to whether it is possible for a third party to easily use the model for something that would be infringement on the part of the third party, but that would become a problem for people who use it for infringement, not the model creator, and not for people who simply possess a copy of the model. The model isn't "an infringing object".