Didn't know Meta paid for them or borrowed them from libraries. In fact, I don't think they did.
Now, would that be a fair use of the books?
Ok, it doesn't tell much about AI and fair use, but I find it funny that your thought experiment is actually something you can do in real life.
There's no reason for Harry Potter for example being 10000 times more valuable than a book on quantum mechanics only because the former is more popular and the latter is on a more obscure topic.
You have bought the text so you have the readright, but you do not the copyright.
You do however, have the right to make derivative works based on the contents of the book. You reading a physics textbook doesn't mean you can't write a blog post about gravity or whatever, and you reading harry potter doesn't mean you can't write a series of fantasy books involving a young wizard trying to fight an evil wizard.
> The application was denied because, based on the applicant’s representations in the application, the examiner found that the work contained no human authorship. After a series of administrative appeals, the Office’s Review Board issued a final determination affirming that the work could not be registered because it was made “without any creative contribution from a human actor.”
That just means whatever they produce can't be copyrighted, not that they can't produce derivative works. Courts have upheld the right for google to produce thumbnails of copyrighted works, even though the procedure for producing thumbnails is done by a computer and thus can't be copyrighted.
Maybe we will end up agreeing that we just want to stick with those same laws for machine consumption and creativity. But maybe we won't since they are quite different things.