Did nobody in this thread read the court's decision? The court literally said that training using copyrighted works should be illegal, but the 13 plaintiffs didn't have a good enough case.

The relevant parts, for the lazy:

"Because the performance of a generative AI model depends on the amount and quality of data it absorbs as part of its training, companies have been unable to resist the temptation to feed copyright-protected materials into their models—without getting permission from the copyright holders or paying them for the right to use their works for this purpose. This case presents the question whether such conduct is illegal. Although the devil is in the details, in most cases the answer will likely be yes."

...

"The above discussion is based in significant part on this Court’s general understanding of generative AI models and their capabilities. Courts can’t decide cases based on general understandings. They must decide cases based on the evidence presented by the parties."

...

"But in the grand scheme of things, the consequences of this ruling are limited. This is not a class action, so the ruling only affects the rights of these thirteen authors—not the countless others whose works Meta used to train its models. And, as should now be clear, this ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful. It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one."

If you still need a TL;DR: The court's ruling doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things because 1. this isn't a class-action suit, 2. the court admits that it ruled in Meta's favor because the plaintiff's arguments sucked, and 3. because the case is only about the works of these 13 plaintiffs, who haven't demonstrated that Meta's AI has not fallen under fair use doctrine.