Right that is the point of the parent comment - it’s not the book, it’s the amalgamation of all the discussions and content about the book. This case is probably dead in the water.
It’s not been decided if training a model on copyrighted works is “okay” or not as far as I know, but I expect it to be so, given that literally everyone does so at this point. It’s not like imagenet is copyright free, many of the images were/are.
Is that a fact? I’m no lawyer, but if they can get it in front of a jurry is it impossible that they will find a human author more relatable and the technical counter arguments goblydook?