www.eff.org/deeplinks/20...

Meanwhile, here is a new publisher proposal

In re today's fair use ruling, tapping the antimonopoly sign regarding books and AI training: creativecommons.org/wp-content/u...

I think you're referring to a different post? This goes thru considerations for license compliance, not relying on L&E

Doesn't seem like a new set of affairs? Principled advocacy is uncomfortable. My whole life, the fair use position has been called thieves, pirates, terrorists, etc. Siding with News Corp and other giant media co now ain't exactly a way to become on the side of democracy and upstarts.

Transcript has some choice bits eg

Filmmaker James Cameron with simple, cogent advice for the AI copyfight - focus on outputs, not training inputs. www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/bus...

Harold flying in off the top rope! :-) More seriously @chup.blakereid.org this is why I was pushing on what you think advocates should do diff - ie, what are the "objectively easy distinctions" you think principled ppl should be making? Otherwise, until we beer, the critique kinda feels like...

Done. Cute dog picture as down payment

Perhaps the answer depends on whether one is focused on being politically effective, to channel the great @haroldfeld.bsky.social

The complainants in the (c)-and-AI lawsuits are a tiny percent of the training data, and an even tinier percent of uses of AI, let alone text and data mining. Day One Project provides an outlook from researchers, along with clear rejoinders to UK rightsholders' stats: ukdayone.org/briefings/co...

Steven Soderbergh with some serious narrative violations on AI and creativity. www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/ste...

This is a helpful thread, thanks. Where I get stuck is understanding the distinction drawn by the court between "interesting" (expressive) and "engaging" here. Isn't an engagement based approach meant to provide stuff that will keep users interested/engaged?

(Nb - the court appears to recognize FB and YT are feeds that are expressive, per Moody. It withheld further consideration because this was a facial challenge, applying to a broader array of feeds

Similarly, the section on AI seems to suggest human expressive choices have a decay rate? Over time the AI is old enough that it's effectively making "judgments" disassociated from people?

It's 2025, and I'm still not clear on the distinction being drawn here. What is an example of "engagement-based" feeds that are designed to serve un-interesting materials and yet keep you "engaged"? If I disagree with something but publish anyway because it's provocative, is that not expressive?

Sigh