Can Smart Software Get Copyright? Wrong?
September 15, 2023
It is official: copyrights are for humans, not machines. JD Supra brings us up to date on AI and official copyright guidelines in, “Using AI to Create a Work – Copyright Protection and Infringement.” The basic principle goes both ways. Creators cannot copyright AI-generated material unless they have manipulated it enough to render it a creative work. On the other hand, it is a violation to publish AI-generated content that resembles a copyright-protected work. As for feeding algorithms a diet of human-made media, that is not officially against the rules. Yet. We learn:
“To obtain copyright protection for a work containing AI-generated material, the work must have sufficient human input, such as sufficient modification of the AI output or the human selection or arrangement of the AI content. However, copyright protection would be limited to those ‘human-made’ elements. Past, pending, and future copyright applications need to identify explicitly the human element and disclaim the AI-created content if it is more than minor. For existing registrations, a supplementary registration may be necessary. Works created using AI are subject to the same copyright infringement analysis applicable to any work. The issue with using AI to create works is that the sources of the original works may not be identified, so an infringement analysis cannot be conducted until the cease-and-desist letter is received. No court has yet adopted the theory that merely using an AI database means the resulting work is automatically an infringing derivative work if it is not substantially similar to the protectable elements in the copyrighted work.”
The article cites the Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190 (March 16, 2023). It notes those guidelines were informed by a decision handed down in February, Zarya v Dawn, which involved a comic book with AI-generated content. the Copyright Office sliced and diced elements, specifying:
“… The selection and arrangement of the images and the text were the result of human authorship and thus copyrightable, but the AI-generated images resulting from human prompts were not. The prompts ‘influenced,’ but did not ‘dictate,’ the resulting image, so the applicant was not the ‘mastermind’ and therefore not the author of the images. Further, the applicant’s edits to the images were too minor to be deemed copyrightable.”
Ah, the fine art of splitting hairs. As for training databases packed with protected content, the article points to pending lawsuits by artists against Stability AI, MidJourney, and Deviant Art. We are told those cases may be dismissed on technical grounds, but are advised to watch for similar cases in the future. Stay tuned.
Cynthia Murrell, September 15, 2023
Apple and Microsoft: Gatekeeping Is Not for Us. We Are Too Small. That Is Correct. Small.
September 13, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “Apple and Microsoft Say Flagship Services Not Popular Enough to Be Gatekeepers.” Pretty amazing. Apple wanted to be a gatekeeper and mobile phone image cop and Microsoft Edge Bing thing routinely polices what its smart software outputs.
The American high school homecoming king and queen, both members of the science club, insist they are not popular. How, one may ask, did you get elected king and queen. The beaming royals said, “We are just small. You know, little itty bitty things. Do you like our outfits?” Thanks, MidJourney. Stay true to the gradient descent thing, please.
Both outfits have draconian procedures to prevent a person from doing much of anything unless one of the den mothers working for these companies gives a nod of approval.
The weird orange newspaper states:
Apple and Microsoft, the most valuable companies in the US, have argued some of their flagship services are insufficiently popular to be designated “gatekeepers” under landmark new EU legislation designed to curb the power of Big Tech. Brussels’ battle with Apple over its iMessage chat app and Microsoft’s search engine Bing comes ahead of Wednesday’s [September 6, 2023] publication of the first list of services that will be regulated by the Digital Markets Act.
The idea is a bit deeper in my opinion. Obviously neither of these outfits wants to pay fines; both want to collect money. But the real point is that this “aw, shucks” attitude is one facet of US high tech outfits’ ability to anger regulators in other countries. I have heard the words “arrogant,” “selfish,” “greedy,” and worse used to describe the smiling acolytes who represent these two firms in their different legal battles in Europe.
I want to look at this somewhat short-sighted effort by Apple and Microsoft from a different point of view. Google, in my opinion, is likely become the gatekeeper, the enforcer, the toll road collector, and the arbiter of framing “truth.” Why? Google is ready, willing, and able to fill the void.
One would assume that Apple and Microsoft would have a sit down with the Zuckbook to discuss the growing desire for content control and dissemination. Nope. The companies are sufficiently involved in their own alleged monopolistic ideas to think about a world in which Google becomes the decider.
Some countries view the US and its techno-business policies and procedures with some skepticism. What happens if the skepticism morphs into another notion? Will Teams and iPhones be enough to make these folks happy?
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2023
AI and the Legal Eagles
September 11, 2023
Lawyers and other legal professionals know that AI algorithms, NLP, machine learning, and robotic process automation can leverage their practices. They will increase their profits, process cases faster, and increase efficiency. The possibilities for AI in legal practice appear to be win-win situation, ReadWrite discusses how different AI processes can assist law firms and the hurdles for implementation in: “Artificial Intelligence In Legal Practice: A Comprehensive Guide.”
AI will benefit law firms in streamlining research and analytics processes. Machine learning and NLP can consume large datasets faster and more efficiently than humans. Contract management and review processes will greatly be improved, because AI offers more comprehensive analysis, detects discrepancies, and decreases repetitive tasks.
AI will also lighten legal firms workloads with document automation and case management. Legal documents, such as leases, deeds, wills, loan agreements, etc., will decrease errors and reduce review time. AI will lowers costs for due diligence procedures and e-discovery through automation and data analytics. These will benefit clients who want speedy results and low legal bills.
Law firms will benefit the most from NLP applications, predictive analytics, machine learning algorithms, and robotic process automation. Virtual assistants and chatbots also have their place in law firms as customer service representatives.
Despite all the potential improvements from AI, legal professionals need to adhere to data privacy and security procedures. They must also develop technology management plans that include, authentication protocols, backups, and identity management strategies. AI biases, such as diversity and sexism issues, must be evaluated and avoided in legal practices. Transparency and ethical concerns must also be addressed to be compliant with governmental regulations.
The biggest barriers, however, will be overcoming reluctant staff, costs, anticipating ROI, and compliancy with privacy and other regulations.
“With a shift from viewing AI as an expenditure to a strategic advantage across cutting-edge legal firm practices, embracing the power of artificial intelligence demonstrates significant potential for intense transformation within the industry itself.”
These challenges are not any different from past technology implementations, except AI could make lawyers more reliant on technology than their own knowledge. Cue the Jaws theme music.
Whitney Grace, September 11, 2023
A Meta Canada Event: Tug of War with Life or Death Table Stakes
August 23, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. By the time this essay appears in Beyond Search, the impasse may have been removed. If so, be aware that I wrote this on August 19, 2023. The dinobaby is not a real-time guy.
I read “As Wildfires Spread, Canadian Leaders Ask Meta to Reverse Its News Ban.” The article makes it clear that a single high technology company has become the focal point of the Canadian government. The write up states:
Meta began blocking news links for Facebook and Instagram users in Canada in June after the country passed a law that allows news organizations to negotiate with tech giants to receive payment for articles shared on their platforms. The ban by Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, has rankled Canadian authorities trying to share evacuation information this week across a remote swath of the country where social media is key to disseminating news.
The fires will kill some people and ravage wildlife unable to flee.
A county fair tug of war between the Zuckbook and Canadian government officials is taking place. Who will win this contest? How many will die as the struggle plays out? MidJourney, you are struggling. I said, “without sepia” and what do I get, “Grungy sepia.” Where is the elephant ears food cart?
On one side is the Canadian law requiring the Zuckbook to pay publishers for articles shared on the Zuck properties. I do understand the motive for the law. Traditional publishers are not equipped to deal with digital media platforms and the ways users of those platforms disseminate and create information. The Zuckbook — like it or not — is perceived by some to be a public utility, and the company should have the management expertise to serve the public and meet the needs of its stakeholders. I know it sound as if I want a commercial enterprise to consider the idea of compromise, ethical ideas, and react in a constructive manner during a time of crisis. Like death.
On the other side is the Zuckbook. The big Zuck has built a successful company, considered the equivalent of a fight in the grade school playground, and taken the view that paying for certain content is not part of the company’s playbook. The Canadian government is perceived by the Big Zuck as adversarial. Governments which pass a law and then beg a US publicly traded company to stop complying with that law are more than an annoyance. These behaviors are little more than evidence that the Canadian government wants to have a fresh croissant delivered by the Zuck minions and say, “Absolutement.”
How will this tug of war end? Will both sides tumble to their derrières? Will the Zuckbook roll over and say, “Certainment”? Will the Canadian government convene a Parliamentary quorum and reverse the law — temporarily, of course.
Several observations:
- Neither the Zuckbook nor the Canadian government is “right.” Compromise perhaps?
- The management approach of the Zuckbook has been and seems to be at this time taken from the famous manual “High School Science Club Management Methods: Superior Beings Can Keep Lesser Being in Their Rightful Place.”
- People will die. A US company and the Canadian government make clear the gulf that exists between commercial enterprises and government expectations.
Remarkable but not surprising.
Stephen E Arnold, August 23, 2023
The ISP Ploy: Heck, No, Mom. I Cannot Find My Other Sock?
August 16, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Before I retired, my team and I were doing a job for the US Senate. One day at lunch we learned that Google could not provide employment and salary information to a government agency housed in the building in which we were working. The talk, as I recall, was tinged with skepticism. If a large company issues paychecks and presumably files forms with the Internal Revenue Service, records about who and wages were available. Google allowed many people to find answers, but the company could not find its employment data. The way things work in Washington, DC, to the best of my recollection, a large company with considerable lobbying help and a flock of legal eagles can make certain processes slow. As staff rotate, certain issues get pushed down the priority pile and some — not everyone, of course — fade away.
A young teen who will mature into a savvy ISP tells his mom, “I can’t find my other sock. It is too hard for me to move stuff and find it. If it turns up, I will put it in the laundry.” This basic play is one of the keys to the success of the Internet Service Provider the bright young lad runs today. Thanks, MidJourney. You were back online and demonstrating gradient malfunctioning. Perhaps you need a bit of the old gain of function moxie?
I thought about this “inability” to deliver information when I read “ISPs Complain That Listing Every Fee Is Too Hard, Urge FCC to Scrap New Rule.” I want to focus on one passage in the article and suggest that you read the original report. Keep in mind my anecdote about how a certain big tech outfit handles some US government requests.
Here’s the snippet from the long source document:
…FCC order said the requirement to list “all charges that providers impose at their discretion” is meant to help broadband users “understand which charges are part of the provider’s rate structure, and which derive from government assessments or programs.” These fees must have “simple, accurate, [and] easy-to-understand name[s],” the FCC order said. “Further, the requirement will allow consumers to more meaningfully compare providers’ rates and service packages, and to make more informed decisions when purchasing broadband services. Providers must list fees such as monthly charges associated with regulatory programs and fees for the rental or leasing of modem and other network connection equipment,” the FCC said.
Three observations about the information in the passage:
- The argument is identical to that illustrated by the teen in the room filled with detritus. Crap everywhere makes finding easy for the occupant and hard for anyone else. Check out Albert Einstein’s desk on the day he died. Crap piled everywhere. Could he find what he needed? According to his biographers, the answer is, “Yes.”
- The idea that a commercial entity which bills its customers does not have the capacity to print out the little row entries in an accounting system is lame in my opinion. The expenses have to labeled and reported. Even if they are chunked like some of the financial statements crafted by the estimable outfits Amazon and Microsoft, someone has the notes or paper for these items. I know some people who could find these scraps of information; don’t you?
- The wild and crazy government agencies invite this type of corporate laissez faire behavior. Who is in charge? Probably not the government agency if some recent anti-trust cases are considered as proof of performance.
Net net: Companies want to be able to fiddle the bills. Period. Printing out comprehensive products and services prices reduces the gamesmanship endemic in the online sector.
Stephen E Arnold, August 16, 2023
The Zuckbook Becomes Cooperative?
August 10, 2023
The Internet empowers people to voice their opinions without fear of repercussions or so they think. While the Internet generally remains anonymous, social media companies must bow to the letter of the law or face fines or other reprisals. Ars Technnica shares how a European court forced Meta to share user information in a civil case: “Facebook To Unmask Anonymous Dutch User Accused Of Repeated Defamatory Posts.”
The Netherlands’ Court of the Hague determined that Meta Ireland must share the identity of a user who defamed the claimant, a male Facebook user. The anonymous user “defamed” the claimant by stating he secretly recorded women he dated. The anonymous user posted the negative statements in private Facebooks groups about dating experiences. The claimant could not access the groups but he did see screenshots. He claimed the posts have harmed his reputation.
After cooperating, executives at a big time technology firm celebrate with joy and enthusiasm. Thanks, MidJourney. You have happiness down pat.
The claimant asked Meta to remove the posts but the company refused based on the grounds of freedom of expression. Meta encouraged the claimant to contact the other user, instead the claimant decided to sue.
Initially, the claimant asked the court to order Meta to delete the posts, identify the anonymous user, and flag any posts in other private Facebook groups that could defame the claimant.
While arguing the case, Meta had defended the anonymous user’s right to freedom of expression, but the court decided that the claimant—whose name is redacted in court documents—deserved an opportunity to challenge the allegedly defamatory statements.
Partly for that reason, the court ordered Meta to provide “basic subscriber information” on the anonymous user, including their username, as well as any names, email addresses, or phone numbers associated with their Facebook account. The court did not order Meta to remove the posts or flag any others that may have been shared in private groups, though.”
The court decided that freedom of speech is not unlimited and the posts could be defamatory. The court also noted posts did not have to be deemed unlawful to de-anonymous a user.
This has the potential to be a landmark case in online user privacy and accountability on social media platforms. In the future, users might need to practice more restraint and think about consequences before posting online. They might want to read etiquette books from the pre-Internet days when constructive behavior was not an anomaly.
Whitney Grace, August 10, 2023
Google: When Wizards Cannot Talk to One Another
August 1, 2023
Note: Dinobaby here: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. Services are now ejecting my cute little dinosaur gif. Like my posts related to the Dark Web, the MidJourney art appears to offend someone’s sensibilities in the datasphere. If I were not 78, I might look into these interesting actions. But I am and I don’t really care.
Google is in the vanguard of modern management methods. As a dinobaby, I thought that employees who disagree would talk about the issue and work out a solution. Perhaps it would be a test of Option A and Option B? Maybe a small working group would dive into a tough technical point and generate a list of talking points for further discussion, testing, and possibly an opinion from a consulting firm?
How would my old-fashioned approach work?
One youthful wizard says, “Your method is not in line with the one we have selected.” The other youthful wizard replies, “Have you tested both and logged the data?” The very serious wizard with the bigger salary responds, “That’s not necessary. Your method is not in line with the one we have selected. By the way, you may find your future elsewhere.” Thanks MidJourney. You have nailed the inability of certain smart people to discuss without demeaning another. Has this happened to you MidJourney?
The answer is, “Are you crazy?”
Navigate to “Google Fails to Get AI Engineer Lawsuit Claiming Wrongful Termination Thrown Out.” As I understand the news report, Google allegedly fired a person who wrote a paper allegedly disagreeing with another Google paper. This, if true, reminded me of the Stochastic Parrot dust up which made Googler Dr. Timnit Gebru a folk hero among some. She is finding her future elsewhere now.
Navigate to the cited article to get more details.
Several points:
- Google appears to be unable to resolve internal discussions without creating PR instead of technical progress.
- The management methods strike me as illogical. I recall discussions with Googlers about the importance of logic, and it is becoming clear to me that Google logic follows it own rules. (Perhaps Google people managers should hire people that can thrive within Google logic?)
- The recourse to the legal system to resolve which may be a technical matter is intellectually satisfying. I am confident that judges, legal eagles, expert witnesses are fully versed in chip engineering for complex and possibly proprietary methods. Have Google people management personnel considered just hiring such multi-faceted legal brains and eliminating wrong-thinking engineers?
Net net: A big time “real” news reporter objected to my use of the phrase “high school management methods.” Okay, perhaps “adolescent management methods” or “adolescent thought processes” are more felicitous phrases. But not for me. These fascinating Google management methods which generate news and legal precedents may render it unnecessary for the firm to use such words as “trust,” “user experience,” and other glittering generalities.
The reality is that cooperative resolution seems to be a facet of quantum supremacy that this dinobaby does not understand.
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2023
Hit Delete. Save Money. Data Liability Is Gone. Is That Right?
July 17, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-37.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
“Reddit Removed Your Chat History from before 2023” stated:
… legacy chats were being migrated to the new chat platform and that only 2023 data is being brought over, adding that they “hope” a data export will help the user get back the older chats. The admin told another user asking whether there was an option to stay on the legacy chat that no, there isn’t, and Reddit is “working on making new chats better.”
A young attorney studies ancient Reddit data from 2023. That’s when information began because the a great cataclysm destroyed any previous, possibly useful data for a legal matter. But what about the Library of Congress? But what about the Internet Archive? But what about back up tapes at assorted archives? Yeah, right. Thanks for the data in amber MidJourney.
The cited article does not raise the following obviously irrelevant questions:
- Are there backups which can be consulted?
- Are their copies of the Reddit data chat data?
- Was the action taken to reduce costs or legal liability?
I am not a Reddit user, nor do I affix site:reddit or append the word “reddit” to my queries. Some may find the service useful, but I am a dinobaby and hopeless out of touch with where the knowledge action is.
As an outsider, my initial reaction is that dumping data has two immediate paybacks: Reduce storage and the likelihood that a group of affable lawyers will ask for historic data about a Reddit user’s activity. My hunch is that users of a free service cannot fathom why a commercial enterprise would downgrade or eliminate a free service. Gee, why?
I think I would answer the question with one word, “Adulting.”
Stephen E Arnold, July 17, 2023
Adolescent Technology Mavens: From the Cage to the Court House
July 11, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-14.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Ladieees and gentlemennnnn, in this corner we have the King of Space and EVs. Weighing 187.3 pounds, the Musker brings a devastating attitude and a known world class skill in naming things. With a record of three and one, his only loss was a self-inflicted KO fighting a large blue bird. Annnnd in this corner, we have the regulator’s favorite wizard, Mark the Eloquent. Weighing in at 155.7 pounds, the Zuckster has a record of 3 and 3. His losses to Cambridge Analytica, the frightening Andrea Jelinek, chair of the European Data Protection Board, and his neighbor in Hawaii who won’t sell land to the social whirlwind.
Where are these young-at-heart wizards fighting? In Las Vegas for a big pile of money? Nope. These estimable wizards will duke it out in the court house. “Scared Musk Sends Legal Threat to Meta after Threads Lures 30 Million on Launch Day” states as fresh-from-the-playground news:
Musk supplemented his tweet [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1676770522200252417] with a legal threat against Meta that echoed despair and fear in the face of his potent adversary. The lawsuit alleges Meta of enticing Twitter’s former employees — many of whom Musk dismissed without honoring severance promises — to contribute to Threads, a move that Twitter asserts infringes upon its intellectual property rights.
One big time journalist took issue with my describing the senior managers of certain high technology firms as practicing “high school science club management methods.” I wish to suggest that rumored cage fight and the possible legal dust up illustrates the thought processes of high school science club members. Yeah, go all in with those 16-year-old decision processes.
The threads are indeed tangled.
Stephen E Arnold, July 11, 2023
Crackdown on Fake Reviews: That Is a Hoot!
July 3, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-1.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “The FTC Wants to Put a Ban on Fake Reviews.” My first reaction was, “Shouldn’t the ever-so-confident Verge poobah have insisted on the word “impose”; specifically, The FTC wants to impose a ban on a fake reviews” or maybe “The FTC wants to rein in fake reviews”? But who cares? The Verge is the digital New York Times and go-to source of “real” Silicon Valley type news.
The write up states:
If you, too, are so very tired of not knowing which reviews to trust on the internet, we may eventually get some peace of mind. That’s because the Federal Trade Commission now wants to penalize companies for engaging in shady review practices. Under the terms of a new rule proposed by the FTC, businesses could face fines for buying fake reviews — to the tune of up to $50,000 for each time a customer sees one.
For more than 30 years, I worked with an individual named Robert David Steele, who was an interesting figure in the intelligence world. He wrote and posted on Amazon more than 5,000 reviews. He wrote these himself, often in down times with me between meetings. At breakfast one morning in the Hague, Steele was writing at the breakfast table, and he knocked over his orange juice. He said, “Give me your napkin.” He used it to jot down a note; I sopped up the orange juice.
“That’s a hoot,” says a person who wrote a product review to make a competitor’s offering look bad. A $50,000 fine. Legal eagles take flight. The laughing man is an image flowing from the creative engine at MidJourney.
He wrote what I call humanoid reviews.
Now reviews of any type are readily available. Here’s an example from Fiverr.com, an Israel-based outfit with gig workers from many countries and free time on their hands:
How many of these reviews will be written by a humanoid? How many will be spat out via a ChatGPT-type system?
What about reviews written by someone with a bone to pick? The reviews are shaded so that the product or the book or whatever is presented in a questionable way? Did Mr. Steele write a review of an intelligence-related book and point out that the author was misinformed about the “real” intel world?
Several observations:
- Who or what is going to identify fake reviews?
- What’s the difference between a Fiverr-type review and a review written by a humanoid motivated by doing good or making the author or product look bad?
- As machine-generated text improves, how will software written to identify machine-generated reviews keep up with advances in the machine-generating software itself?
Net net: External editorial and ethical controls may be impractical. In my opinion, a failure of ethical controls within social structures creates a greenhouse in which fakery, baloney, misinformation, and corrupted content to thrive. In this context, who cares about the headline. It too is a reflection of the pickle barrel in which we soak.
Stephen E Arnold, July 3, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
