The future of internet history
Hello, and welcome to WIRED Start: your weekly roundup of the most important stories, landing in your inbox every Monday. Don’t forget, you can get the very latest from WIRED with our daily newsletter. Sign up to receive it for free here.?
This week, WIRED Start explores the Hachette v. Internet Archive copyright case brought by book publishers objecting to the archive’s digital lending library. In a decision that could have a significant impact on the future of internet history, the Internet Archive has lost a major legal battle.
Last week the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the long-running digital archive, upholding an earlier ruling in Hachette v. Internet Archive that found that one of the Internet Archive’s book digitization projects violated copyright law.
Notably, the appeals court’s ruling rejects the Internet Archive’s argument that its lending practices were shielded by the fair use doctrine, which permits for copyright infringement in certain circumstances, calling it “unpersuasive.”
The new verdict arrives at an especially tumultuous time for copyright law. In the past two years there have been dozens of copyright infringement cases filed against major AI companies that offer generative AI tools, and many of the defendants in these cases argue that the fair use doctrine shields their usage of copyrighted data in AI training. Any major lawsuit in which judges refute fair use claims are thus closely watched.
It also arrives at a moment when the Internet Archive’s outsize importance in digital preservation is keenly felt. The archive’s Wayback Machine, which catalogs copies of websites, has become a vital tool for journalists, researchers, lawyers, and anyone with an interest in internet history. While there are other digital preservation projects, including national efforts from the US Library of Congress, there’s nothing like it available to the public.
Get ahead with these recommended reads
Using special software, WIRED investigated police surveillance at the DNC. We collected signals from nearly 300,000 devices, revealing vulnerabilities for both law enforcement and everyday citizens alike, writes Dhruv Mehrotra .
The Navy is testing out the Elon Musk–owned satellite constellation to provide high-speed internet access to sailors at sea. It’s part of a bigger project that’s about more than just getting online, writes Jared Keller .
领英推荐
Unit 29155 of Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency—a team responsible for coup attempts, assassinations, and bombings—has branched out into brazen hacking operations with targets across the world, writes Andy Greenberg .
Two major wars. A rising China. Hackers everywhere. He’s the US secretary of state, and he says he’s here to help, writes Garrett M. Graff .
Until next time
Upgrading how we buy
WIRED Consulting has spoken to ten experts in AI from around the world, to understand how it is impacting consumer decision-making. Read the full report here.??
We'll be back next Monday with another WIRED Start.?Until then, you can unlock unlimited access to WIRED’s content with a subscription.
geodoma.com
5 天前"many of the defendants in these cases argue that the fair use doctrine shields their usage of copyrighted data in AI training." This argument has been rendered [pun] invalid. Those same defendants have entered into licensing agreements with certain entities to use copyrighted data. One cannot argue fair use and offer to pay for that same data. This is a tacit admission that an expressed permission from the owner of a copyrighted work is required. Using someone else's copyrighted material without permission to create derivatives of that work is considered copyright infringement. In the United States, where copyright infringement is further distributed and aided by wire communications across state borders on a massive scale, this is considered wire fraud. OpenAI cannot produce a profit if it forced to pay for data, so it violated copyright law, to make a profit. This thing has no future, aside from federal prison. This data is simply not valuable enough to pay for, and neither can be reproduced without paying for. That same money dilemma exists in Hachette v. Internet Archive, with the only difference that Internet Archive is a non-profit.