Read this and weep!
Legal blogger David L. Hayes Esq for Fenwick & West LLP has amassed a 927-page compendium of
Advanced Copyright Issues On The Internet.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7b1cb120-7b71-478d-88f6-21c2d4eeb01
It is compelling, and largely disheartening reading, which explains which copyright owners lost their copyright infringement lawsuits, and why. Also who won, and why.
For instance, Googlebots, arguably, cannot infringe copyright because a bot has no "volition", and "to state a direct copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must allege volitional conduct on the part of the defendant."
Field v Google, Page 50.
When the little people lie to Big Tech, (for instance when "users" falsely claim that they have the right to upload copyrighted material for sharing), government safe harbors protect the lied-to Big Tech, but there appear to be inadequate penalties for the little liars, and inadequate remedies for the copyright owners.
Also on the theme of AI, legal blogger Eric J. Sinrod for the Duane Morris LLP TechLaw Blog asks ominously, "Artificial Intelligence: Are We Safe?"
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1657a1e6-813d-4ef3-acad-b2feb3caf0b3
Mr. Sinrod lists 10 reasons to worry about A1.
He does not mention the effect on blood pressure and emotional well being of those forced to interact with bots instead of humans. Certainly the "ultra smart" bots that respond to customers' telephone calls seem to get it wrong, more than 70% of the time in this customer's experience, and the ultra smart telemarketing bots that coyly diss their previous victims are unable to respond appropriately when asked to solve the addition of two plus two.
So smart!
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment