Blog

Harmful 5G Fast Lanes Are Coming. The FCC Needs to Stop Them

The FCC is set to vote on April 25 to restore its authority over the companies we pay to get online, and reinstate federal net neutrality protections that were jettisoned by the Trump administration in 2017. 

Net neutrality protections are supposed to ensure that we, not the internet service providers (ISPs) we pay to get online, get to decide what we do online. Read more about Harmful 5G Fast Lanes Are Coming. The FCC Needs to Stop Them

Tool Without A Handle: Are You Not Trained? - Part 2

This post addresses whether, in light of what’s noted thus far, copyright law requires AI model builders to license all such content, and thus whether a mandatory licensing scheme to enable fair exchange of value between creators of protected content and the AI model builders should be created.

My answer is a caveated “no” – for the moment, no copyright claim has persuaded a court that licensing is required to avoid infringing the rights of copyright holders in scanned/scraped works used to train AI models.[3] There remain arguments that use of content to train AI models is protected by fair use principles, which permit use of a protected work for study and to create transformative new works, and many AI model builders continue to defend these arguments.

Nonetheless, I believe a voluntary (or regulatorily encouraged) comprehensive licensing regime is both likely and preferable, for at least three reasons:
1) Distribution models already fail to allocate a reasonable and sustainable share of revenue for creative works to compensate artists who invented the works (including the concepts underlying the work) and undertook the risks, time, and other expense in bringing them into existence; AI could tip the balance here such that it works a material harm on the pace and profit of creative work;
2) Misinformation concerns already constitute a compelling interest that government regulation can and should address. The fight against misinformation enjoys substantial advantages where content can be properly attributed to its true creator, including creators who build off of licensed content to create their own works (e.g., parody entertainment). Thus, a licensing scheme furthers both public and private interests related to reducing misinformation (and disinformation);
3) It’s easier to contract than to sue, and it’s preferable to contract than to operate against uncertainty about material issues such as the lawfulness of model training. Many firms will prefer to reduce such uncertainty, and many more deals will be struck, and more innovations launched, in its absence. There are strong commercial incentives for firms to create efficient and industry-wide tools and processes that enable such risk reductions. Read more about Tool Without A Handle: Are You Not Trained? - Part 2

How to Strengthen the FCC’s Proposed Net Neutrality Protections by Closing Loopholes and Matching the 2015 Open Internet Order

The Federal Communications Commission is looking to restore net neutrality for all Americans. The FCC published its proposal, a so-called Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in October 2023. The comments period ended in mid-January. A vote is expected in late April. Read more about How to Strengthen the FCC’s Proposed Net Neutrality Protections by Closing Loopholes and Matching the 2015 Open Internet Order

FAQs about the NetChoice Cases at the Supreme Court, Part 1

The Supreme Court is about to review a constitutional challenge to two unprecedented and very complicated laws regulating social media. The laws were enacted by Texas and Florida in order to counter “censorship” and alleged anti-conservative bias of major Internet platforms like Facebook or YouTube. Both laws have “must-carry” rules that restrict platforms’ ability to moderate content under their preferred editorial policies, and “transparency” rules including requirements for platforms to notify users when their posts have been moderated. Read more about FAQs about the NetChoice Cases at the Supreme Court, Part 1

Tool Without A Handle: Are You Not Trained?

Tool Without a Handle: Are You Not Trained?

This post takes up the questions of how copyright law may impact the development and commercialization of Artificial Intelligence ("AI") tools, given their use of other people's data, generally without prior notice or permission. While litigation on these issues is still moving through the courts, it is possible that even straight reproductions of protected content by AI tools will be deemed lawful "fair use." But there's much to argue for not resting the future of AI on that prospect, and instead to there's also much to offer in a voluntary, self-regulatory scheme, similar to how protected works are licensed and made broadly available through music licensing processes that allow licenses for public performances of copyrighted songs. Read more about Tool Without A Handle: Are You Not Trained?

Pages

Subscribe to Stanford CIS Blog