> Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods.

Okay, but if there was no permission to "copy" the content by the owners. I wish I knew more about it all, but seems to me that quoting a snippet from a book while offering comment on it would be classic fair use. Consuming the entire collection for free to charge for transformative services really doesn't feel 'fair'.

And again I can't shake the feeling that if I did this, was brought to court. I would be laughed at for claiming fair use.

My (limited) understanding was that in the USA it was not illegal to read a book you don't own but it is illegal to make a copy (download) of a book you don't own.

I still don't fully grok how Meta can legally download a pirated book as fair use when an individual doing the same would be deemed a criminal act.

It would seem that Meta still don't have the right to make copies of books that they haven't paid for no matter what they do with it.

> Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods.

Copyright covers four rights:

    The right to make copies
    The right to distribute copies
    The right to create derivative works
    The right to publicly perform

Copying and distribution are central to what copyright attempts to control.