Scott Sholder的动态

Can #AI change this #copyright decision? In a case that tested what it means to digitize copyrighted works and disseminate it to millions of users without the permission of the copyright holders, the federal appeals court of New York for the Second Circuit, has sided with the publishers and ruled Internet Archive (IA) infringed the copyright of the publishers and authors. Basically the Court applied the Supreme Courts Four-factor test for fair use and deemed that Internet archive failed in all of the four prongs. The Court dismissed the novel theory of CDL (Controlled Digital Lending) presented by the Internet Archive, stating that IA's "One to One - Owned to Loaned" as not similar to traditional library lending of print books. The most important aspect of the Court's decision in my opinion is the Court rejections of IA's argument that its scanning program is "transformative", thus failing the first prong of the four-factor test. The Court stated that, digitization of copyright work, whether the use is for non-profit or commercial would infringe the copyright law's fair use test ("the purpose and character of the use"), when you copy the work "lock, stock and barrel" and facilitate dissemination of the work to millions of users without compensating the authors or licensing from the publishers. Now let us apply Artificial Intelligence to this situation. For example , if an entity takes a copyrighted book, feed it into the LLM machine, and creates a new digital book, albeit based on the original work, will that be "Transformative" and pass the fair use test? In my hypo, let us assume an adult themed , copyrighted book is fed into the AI machine and prompted to produce a teen friendly version of the book, and assuming it does a great job of it and that book is used by Internet Archive to lend to its user... now, will that pass the fair-use test of the Court? How AI will test the current understanding of the Copyright and Intellectual Property laws will be an interesting thing to observe in the ever evolving AI landscape. For now the it is still "stare-decisis". #copyright #fairuse #AI #publishing

Chair of the Bar Council Samuel Townend KC has responded to the #KingsSpeech, which proposed legislation on Victims, Courts and Public Protection, Crime and Policing, and Arbitration. Sam said: “We welcome the new Government’s commitment to tackle the Crown Court backlogs. What victims, defendants including those ultimately found innocent, and the public most need is timely, efficient justice. That is what will do most to restore victims’ confidence in the justice system, which has been undermined by the huge court backlogs and delays. “The measures in the Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill must work hand in glove with the Crime and Policing Bill. Any measures to introduce new powers for the police, new offences or sentences must be backed by proper resources for the administration of justice after charge. Otherwise, it is just more unsustainable pressure on a system that is already on the verge of collapse due to historic underinvestment.??? “On wider justice measures, we are pleased to see the Government intends to bring back the Arbitration Bill. This important reform will help to ensure London maintains its deserved reputation as the foremost centre for international arbitration, supporting our legal profession, and is an important contribution to the country’s income from exports. The hard currency and soft power value to the country of the legal services sector, the most liberal and open in the world, and already constituting 10% of the global legal economy, should not be understated.” Read the government briefing notes: https://lnkd.in/e7EpKWw9

2024 at the Court of Justice of the European Union has started with 4 very interesting AG Opinions: 2 on Article 102 TFEU and 2 on private enforcement: ? 11 January - AG Kokott’s Opinion in Google Shopping (Case C-48/22 P) The AG proposes that the Court (not to forget: the Grand Chamber) should dismiss Google's appeal. Still, on occasions, the AG does not seem to be a fan of the General Court’s judgment. I stop here, since I am involved in this case… 17 January – AG Medina’s Opinion in Intel (Case C-240/22 P) The AG proposes the rejection of the appeal. When I first heard of the European Commission's appeal against the GC’s "renvoi" judgment, I joked that the Court might reject the appeal by order (i.e., in a summary way). Jokes apart, so far we are not too far from what I had in mind. First, there was no oral hearing. Second, the Court asked the AG to limit her Opinion only to the 4th and 5th grounds of appeal, i.e. that the GC erred in law and infringed the Commission’s rights of defense in the examination of the AEC test for HP and that the GC erred in its interpretation of the AEC test and of Article 102 TFEU, distorted the evidence and infringed the Commission’s rights of defense in the examination of that test for Lenovo. The Court must have thought that everything was clear in the 4 other grounds of appeal (one can speculate in what way and in which direction ??). Such shorter and more targeted Opinions are rare in competition law and are called "conclusions ciblées" in French (for another recent example, see AG Rantos's Opinion of 1 February in Case C-70/23 P, Westf?lische Drahtindustrie). 11 January - AG Szpunar’s Opinion in Volvo (Case C-632/22) Another preliminary reference from Spain, again in a follow-on case from the trucks cartel decision. Rightly, the AG proposes to the Court to hold that the victims of a cartel cannot validly serve the writ of summons to a parent company established in one Member State by addressing it on a subsidiary of that company in another Member State. I.e. (my words), enough is enough with effectiveness – we should not undo the whole system of rules on service (Regulation 1393/2007)… 8 February – AG Emiliou’s Opinion in MOL (Case C-425/22) Another private enforcement case with a similar question (my words again): Should we abolish the basic principles on jurisdiction for the sake of effectiveness and because of the single economic unit doctrine? Rightly, the AG says no: it should not be possible for a parent company to bring an action at the place of its registered seat for the damage suffered by its subsidiaries elsewhere. The doctrine of single economic unit cannot work in the reverse and undo Regulation 1215/2012. Speaking of AG Opinions, there is one coming up in the Illumina/GRAIL saga (Joined Cases C-611/22 P and C-625/22 P). AG Emiliou will deliver his Opinion on 21 March. This is the jurisdiction case and will be heard by the Grand Chamber of the Court! Probably THE OPINION of 2024…

Never miss the latest news at the UPC! ? On February 1st, the UPC has published the updated official number of figures cases since the start of operations on June 1, 2023, till January 31, 2024. ?? First NPE cases on semiconductor patents ?? Among the above said infringement actions, there are also actions started by NPEs on patents on semiconductor technology in the last 2 months. The first case was filed in December 2023 in the Paris Local Division by ICPillar against twelve companies of the ARM Group and regards a patent protecting a system and method for universal control of electronic devices, which is used to produce semiconductors. The other infringement cases were filed in January 2024 by Network System Technologies against Texas Instruments, Audi and Volkswagen before the Munich Local Division and concern three patents related to integrated circuits in chip technology. ?? The UPC has received a total of 217 cases ?? 83 infringement actions, within which 29 in Munich, 17 in Düsseldorf, 11 in Mannheim, 9 in Paris, 5 in the Nordic Baltic, 3 each in Hamburg, Milan and the Hague and 1 each in Brussel, Helsinki and Vienna; 26 individual counterclaims, among 86 counterclaims for revocation; 22 applications for provisional measures, preserving evidence and orders for inspection; 25 revocation actions; 11 appeals. The language of the proceedings are mainly German (47%) and English (43%).

Interesting case. The 5th Circuit held that funds generated by the FCC's universal service programs are not federal funds. The 7th Circuit seems to be open to the possibility that the money in question could be federal funds. The latter view is consistent with the thoughts of some of the General Accountabity Office's auditors back in the early to mid-2000s. I worked on that issue back then. In telecommunications law, legal and regulatory issues from the past often live on. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, needs some serious and major revisions as portions of the 1996 Act amending the 34 Act do not make sense anymore. USF needs reform for one thing. Congress needs to stop focusing on the demands of the extreme left and the extreme right and update our telecommunications law.

Check out my latest publication - coauthored with David McIntosh and Parv Gondalia - on the potential demise of controlled digital lending (at least in the Second Circuit).

CDT mentioned alongside Berkeley Law + Library Freedom Project in Inside Higher for the amicus brief filed in Hachette v. Internet Archive. The appeals court recent ruling against controlled digital lending puts #ReaderPrivacy at risk. https://lnkd.in/ex7YmvTq Our brief argued that the court should allow CDL because libraries are much better at protecting reader #privacy than are commercial lenders. Improved reader privacy is crucial for freedom of expression and freedom to access information. https://lnkd.in/e9eKz4DB

There’s a Fix for All the Useless Alerts You Get on Your Phone https://lnkd.in/gw7DG7WD THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

You may find my most recent op-ed on protecting children on the Internet for The Hill newspaper interesting. On July 3, 1995? -29 years ago-? the modern age of Internet policy-making and regulation probably began with Time Magazine's spectacular cover story on children and "Cyberporn."? Since then, regulators, engineers, educators, civil libertarians, industry and law enforcement have been struggling to figure out how to distinguish between an adult and a child on the Internet so that Internet content that is lawful and appropriate for adults but harmful to children can be accessed by adults but not by children.? Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court agreed to consider a case in which a group representing some adult Internet content providers are challenging State laws requiring the adult content providers to ensure that their Internet adult content is not accessed by children.I review the composition and history of this issue and explore how, in 29 years, a lot has changed...and yet some things have not changed at all.??Feel free to share,Roger Cochettihttps://lnkd.in/et_dG_FZ