No, what was proved in court was that they downloaded and trained on millions of pirated books. The court said their use of books is fair use, but stealing them isn't.

I think we're going to see cases that find distillation is also fair use. You're using the competing model like a book. You pay for it, you use it (read it), it informs your model, but you aren't repeating/reselling what the model told you verbatim. Foreign labs may still run afoul of competing labs' Terms of Service, and they may also pay a settlement (or not, it's a different jurisdiction after all), but the damage is already done. Distillation will become uncontroversial when done legally.

Then distillation isn't a violation either by extension.

it's a 'too big to fail' model. Because they have a big swinging dick all the copyright and other restrictions they violated would nuke them from orbit so we can't actually hold them to account for it .... for some fucking reason.

> Has it been proved in a court of law that it is a copyright violation?

God I'm so tired of this.

The billion dollar companies have the ability to hire an army of lawyers to DDOS the legal system. They at most pay a slap-on-the-wrist fine as the cost of doing business.