SoylentNews

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

The head of the US Copyright Office has reportedly been fired, the day after agency concluded that builders of AI models use of copyrighted material went beyond existing doctrines of fair use.

The office’s opinion on fair use came in a draft of the third part of its report on copyright and artificial intelligence. The first part considered digital replicas and the second tackled whether it is possible to copyright the output of generative AI.

The office published the draft [PDF] of Part 3, which addresses the use of copyrighted works in the development of generative AI systems, on May 9th.

The draft notes that generative AI systems “draw on massive troves of data, including copyrighted works” and asks: “Do any of the acts involved require the copyright owners’ consent or compensation?”

That question is the subject of several lawsuits, because developers of AI models have admitted to training their products on content scraped from the internet and other sources without compensating content creators or copyright owners. AI companies have argued fair use provisions of copyright law mean they did no wrong.

As the report notes, one test courts use to determine fair use considers “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”. If a judge finds an AI company’s use of copyrighted material doesn’t impact a market or value, fair use will apply.

The report finds AI companies can’t sustain a fair use defense in the following circumstances:

When a model is deployed for purposes such as analysis or research… the outputs are unlikely to substitute for expressive works used in training. But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries.

The office will soon publish a final version of Part 3 that it expects will emerge “without any substantive changes expected in the analysis or conclusions.”

Arthur Wellesley writes:

The XKCD cartoon 'PhD Timeline' ( https://xkcd.com/3081/ ) with its rollover, protests.

Original Submission

canopic jug writes:

Harvard University is pushing back via a lawsuit against micromanagement and censorship attempts emanating from the White House.

What is the rationale for the IRS revisiting Harvard's exemption status? A theory is needed, because section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code says that an organization "shall"—not "may"—be exempt from taxation if it meets criteria listed in the statute. One of those criteria is for an institution to be organized exclusively for "educational purposes."

— The Conservative Case for Leaving Harvard Alone.   The Atlantic.

The university's sudden decision to stand up, according to insiders, wasn't the plan a week earlier—and came about because the White House sent a list of demands so detailed, so humiliating, and so crudely anti-intellectual that Harvard was left with no option but to reject it. (There is growing suspicion here that Trump's demands were deliberately crafted to be rejected, setting the stage for more Trumpian melodrama and hysteria.)

— Harvard Stands Up.   The Nation.

The Harvard Crimson has started to cover this lawsuit:

"The tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions," Harvard's lawyers wrote in the Monday filing.

The 51-page complaint, filed in a United States district court, asks for the court to halt and declare unlawful the $2.2 billion freeze, as well as any freezes made in connection with "unconstitutional conditions" in the Trump administration's April 3 and April 11 letters outlining demands to Harvard.

— Harvard Sues Trump Administration Over $2.2 Billion Funding Freeze.   The Harvard Crimson.

upstart writes:

The Israeli spyware maker, still on the US Commerce Department's "blacklist," has hired a new lobbying firm with direct ties to the Trump administration, a WIRED investigation has found:

Shortly after Donald Trump declared victory in November, NSO Group cofounder and majority owner Omri Lavie rushed to X to congratulate him, speaking of a "new chapter where the world goes back to common sense," while accusing the outgoing Biden administration of being "weak." In another tweet, he gushed in Hebrew that Republicans "won in every category: the presidency, Congress, Senate, and the popular vote."

Lavie's enthusiasm is understandable. His company—frequently associated with alleged human rights abuses, most recently in February when journalists in Serbia were targeted with its Pegasus spyware—had a significant stake in a Trump victory, with the hopes of regaining the ability to freely do business with US entities. In a comment to Amnesty International, NSO stated, in part, that its "commitment to maintain the highest standard of ethical conduct as well as confidentiality towards our customers is paramount and is consistent with industry norms and our legal obligations."

The Israeli spyware vendor has been on the US Commerce Department's "blacklist" for more than three years, meaning it cannot do business with US companies without specific government approval. NSO Group poured at least $1.8 million into an aggressive pre-election lobbying effort, focusing primarily on Republican senators and representatives, with some meetings occurring as often as eight times. Yet the company remains on the Entity List.

Now, with a new occupant in the White House, NSO Group appears to be shifting its political strategy.

The company seems to have either terminated or altered its engagement with several of its previous lobbying consultancies in Washington—some of which were closely aligned with the Democrats—and has started working with a key new lobbying partner: the Vogel Group.

Founded by Alex Vogel, who served as chief counsel to former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, the Vogel Group is providing NSO Group with "strategic advisory on cybersecurity policy matters," according to lobbying disclosure documents filed on March 10.

[...] NSO Group's recent lobbying efforts appear to have mainly focused on Republican lawmakers, more than executive branch power players, particularly as the Biden administration had been engaged in a crackdown on commercial spyware. The company previously worked with several lobbying contractors, with whom it appears to have either terminated or altered its registrations.

[...] As of early March—before Vogel Group's registration as a lobbyist for NSO Group—there had been no indication that the Trump administration intended to remove the company from the Entity List, according to a source familiar with the administration's moves regarding spyware, who asked not to be named in order to discuss confidential matters. However, recent comments by NSO Group's Lavie soft-peddled the impact of the Entity List on the company's ability to operate in the US.

[...] ​​Lobbying efforts can target different parts of the US government. By lobbying the executive branch (the president and agencies), lobbyists can influence how laws are enforced rather than what the laws say. In contrast, when lobbying Congress, the focus is on passing, blocking, or amending laws by influencing legislators.

[...] Asked whether the Trump administration intends to uphold the EO, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to comment.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

More doubt is being cast over the US CHIPS Act program with the Trump administration threatening to halt payments unless companies in line to receive funding commit to substantially expand their own investments.

President Donald Trump has issued an Executive Order to establish a new office within the Department of Commerce titled the United States Investment Accelerator.

The office's aim is "to encourage companies to make large investments in the United States," and among its powers will be oversight of the CHIPS Program to maximize the benefits for taxpayers, the White House states.

This move follows earlier calls by President Trump to scrap CHIPS Act funding entirely, and any remaining money to be allocated to cutting federal debt.

According to reports, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has indicated that he intends to withhold CHIPS Act grants already agreed in order to push the companies involved to substantially expand the projects they have planned.

The aim is to force semiconductor makers promised grants and subsidies for building new manufacturing facilities on American soil to invest even more, without increasing the size of federal grants. This follows the example of TSMC, which earlier this month pledged to spend $100 billion to expand its US fabrication plants.

However, that $100 billion figure disclosed by TSMC chief CC Wei during his meeting with Trump was merely an estimated price tag for plans the company had in the pipeline anyway. Intel's former boss, Pat Gelsinger, also pointed out recently that while TSMC is building fabs in the US, it is keeping its research and development in Taiwan.

"If you don't have R&D in the US, you will not have semiconductor leadership in the US," Gelsinger said at the end of last week.

His old company finalized an agreement with the Department of Commerce in November to receive up to $7.86 billion from the CHIPS Act, which would make it the largest beneficiary of the federal government's cash, if it actually receives it all.

That was also conditional on Intel retaining control of its foundries, amid talk that the troubled Santa Clara-based biz was potentially looking to spin them off as part of a restructure. Intel has since announced it is delaying some of its fab buildout, such as pushing back the completion of its $28 billion Ohio plant until at least 2030.

Gelsinger had previously stated that without CHIPS Act funding, Intel would continue to build new fabs in Arizona and Ohio, however the expansion would take longer, and it wouldn't be as comprehensive.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

https://www.wired.com/story/federal-trade-commission-removed-blogs-critical-of-ai-amazon-microsoft/

The Trump administration's Federal Trade Commission has removed four years' worth of business guidance blogs as of Tuesday morning, including important consumer protection information related to artificial intelligence and the agency's landmark privacy lawsuits under former chair Lina Khan against companies like Amazon and Microsoft. More than 300 blogs were removed.

On the FTC's website, the page hosting all of the agency's business-related blogs and guidance no longer includes any information published during former president Joe Biden's administration, current and former FTC employees, who spoke under anonymity for fear of retaliation, tell WIRED. These blogs contained advice from the FTC on how big tech companies could avoid violating consumer protection laws.

One now deleted blog, titled "Hey, Alexa! What are you doing with my data?" explains how, according to two FTC complaints, Amazon and its Ring security camera products allegedly leveraged sensitive consumer data to train the ecommerce giant's algorithms. (Amazon disagreed with the FTC's claims.) It also provided guidance for companies operating similar products and services. Another post titled "$20 million FTC settlement addresses Microsoft Xbox illegal collection of kids' data: A game changer for COPPA compliance" instructs tech companies on how to abide by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by using the 2023 Microsoft settlement as an example. The settlement followed allegations by the FTC that Microsoft obtained data from children using Xbox systems without the consent of their parents or guardians.

"In terms of the message to industry on what our compliance expectations were, which is in some ways the most important part of enforcement action, they are trying to just erase those from history," a source familiar tells WIRED.

Another removed FTC blog titled "The Luring Test: AI and the engineering of consumer trust" outlines how businesses could avoid creating chatbots that violate the FTC Act's rules against unfair or deceptive products. This blog won an award in 2023 for "excellent descriptions of artificial intelligence."

The Trump administration has received broad support from the tech industry. Big tech companies like Amazon and Meta, as well as tech entrepreneurs like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, all donated to Trump's inauguration fund. Other Silicon Valley leaders, like Elon Musk and David Sacks, are officially advising the administration. Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employs technologists sourced from Musk's tech companies. And already, federal agencies like the General Services Administration have started to roll out AI products like GSAi, a general-purpose government chatbot.

The FTC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from WIRED.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

A federal judge has dealt a blow to Elon Musk’s DOGE agenda. On Thursday, Judge William Alsup of San Francisco said that the firing of tens of thousands of federal probationary workers had been based on a “lie” and that the government had conducted the expulsions illegally—further calling the initiative a “sham.” Alsup ordered that the workers be reinstated immediately.

Probationary workers—that is, workers who are new to the workforce and haven’t received more advanced benefits and protections—have suffered massive cuts across the government, as DOGE and the Trump administration have attempted to greatly reduce the federal workforce. The case before Alsup concerns litigation brought by union groups representing those workers.

Alsup’s reinstatement order applies to thousands of federal workers fired from the Defense Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Treasury Department, and the Department of the Interior. Government Executive reports that some 24,000 employees would regain their jobs as a result of the judge’s decision.

The government’s firing of the employees was illegitimate because the agencies impacted by the cuts were directed by the Office of Personnel Management to do so, Alsup said. The OPM does not have the authority to make such orders, as those orders could only be made by the agencies themselves, the judge concluded.

Many of the cuts in question took place not long after Musk’s DOGE initiative was announced and a team of Musk-linked workers took over the OPM. That team is said to have included numerous current and former employees of Musk, including Amanda Scales, a former Musk employee who was appointed chief of staff at the agency. On January 31, Reuters reported that Musk aides had locked career civil servants out of the computer systems at the agency and were engaged in some sort of undisclosed work involving said systems. Democratic lawmakers subsequently accused Musk of leading a “hostile takover” of the agency.

On February 14, Reuters reported that, as part of the government downsizing initiative being led by Musk, the Trump administration had begun to fire “scores” of government employees, a majority of which were still on probation. A statement from the OPM at the time said that the Trump administration was “encouraging agencies to use the probationary period as it was intended: as a continuation of the job application process, not an entitlement for permanent employment.”

Charles Ezell, the acting director of the OPM, met with the heads of numerous federal agencies on February 13 and ordered them to fire tens of thousands of employees, according to the unions representing the workers. The government has claimed that Ezell was not issuing orders and was merely providing “guidance.” However, Alsup recently determined that the OPM had, indeed, ordered the firings, and done so illegally.

“The court finds that Office of Personnel Management did direct all agencies to terminate probationary employees with the exception of mission critical employees,” Alsup recently said.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

https://www.wired.com/story/doge-government-salaries-elon-musk/

Engineers and executives at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency are drawing healthy taxpayer-funded salaries—sometimes from the very agencies they are cutting.

[...] Jeremy Lewin, one of the DOGE employees tasked with dismantling USAID, who has also played a role in DOGE's incursions into the National Institutes of Health and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is listed as making just over $167,000 annually, WIRED has confirmed. Lewin is assigned to the Office of the Administrator within the General Services Administration.

Kyle Schutt, a software engineer at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is listed as drawing a salary of $195,200 through GSA, where he is assigned to the Office of the Deputy Administrator. That is the maximum amount that any "General Schedule" federal employee can make annually, including bonuses. "You cannot be offered more under any circumstances," the GSA compensation and benefits website reads.

Nate Cavanaugh, a 28-year-old tech entrepreneur who has taken a visible internal role interviewing GSA employees as part of DOGE's work at the agency, is listed as being paid just over $120,500 per year. According to DOGE's official website, the average GSA employee makes $128,565 and has worked at the agency for 13 years.

When Elon Musk started recruiting for DOGE in November, he described the work as "tedious" and noted that "compensation is zero." WIRED previously reported that the DOGE recruitment effort relied in part on a team of engineers associated with Peter Thiel and was carried out on platforms like Discord.

Since Trump took office in January, DOGE has overseen aggressive layoffs within the GSA, including the recent elimination of 18F, the agency's unit dedicated to technology efficiency. It also developed a plan to sell off more than 500 government buildings.

Although Musk has described DOGE as "maximum transparent," it has not made its spending or salary ranges publicly available. Funding for DOGE had grown to around $40 million as of February 20, according to a recent ProPublica report. The White House did not respond to questions about the salary ranges for DOGE employees or how the budget is allocated to pay them.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

The FCC runs an $8 billion federal subsidy program to help bring phone and broadband services to lower income homes and schools called the Universal Service Fund. The program was historically a bipartisan thing, until the extremist Trump administration came to town.

Driven by a fake right wing consumer group called “Consumers’ Research,” the Trumplican-stacked Fifth Circuit court of appeals recently took the radical step of ruling the entire program unconstitutional. The ruling, which ignored past Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, effectively declared the USF an unconstitutional, illegal tax, something seven court dissenters said was a preposterous leap.

Now the Supreme Court has stated they’ll hear the case, which will ultimately determine whether federal efforts to expand broadband access to poor, rural neglected communities is effectively illegal or not.

Not too surprisingly, 15 MAGA loyal Attorneys General, apparently with nothing better to do, have thrown their support behind the effort to effectively make helping poor people afford broadband illegal:

Original Submission

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

United States president Donald Trump last Friday issued a memorandum that suggests imposition of tariffs on nations that dare to tax big tech companies.

The memorandum mentions the digital services taxes (DSTs) were introduced to capture profits from revenue that tech companies generate in one country but collect in another. Netflix is often cited as an example of why such taxes are needed, because many of its customers around the world paid their subscriptions to an entity in The Netherlands. Governments argued that was inappropriate because Netflix was selling to their citizens, who consumed the vid-streamer’s services in their territory, and that a Netflix subscription therefore represented economic activity in their jurisdictions that should be taxed like any other.

Another reason DSTs were considered was that Netflix’s Netherlands scheme, like many other structures used by Big Tech companies, are legal-but-cynical tax efforts at reducing their tax bills to levels well below those local companies pay.

The OECD developed measures to prevent multinational companies using such tactics, and they have been widely adopted without stopping all of Big Tech’s tax tricks. DSTS were pitched as necessary – perhaps temporarily – while the OECD approach was developed, and adopted.

Trump’s opposition to DSTs is not new: the Biden administration felt they disproportionately targeted US businesses and threatened 25 percent tariffs if they were not removed. The UK and Europe dropped some of the taxes, as did India.

Tariffs are now back on the agenda for remaining digital services taxes. As outlined in a Friday memorandum, Trump stated: “My Administration will not allow American companies and workers and American economic and national security interests to be compromised by one-sided, anti-competitive policies and practices of foreign governments. American businesses will no longer prop up failed foreign economies through extortive fines and taxes.”

“All of these measures violate American sovereignty and offshore American jobs, limit American companies’ global competitiveness, and increase American operational costs while exposing our sensitive information to potentially hostile foreign regulators,” the Memorandum adds.

The document also calls for US authorities to consider DSTs in its report on the OECD tax measures mentioned above, which Trump also feels unjustly penalize American businesses.

The Memorandum instructs the US Trade Representative to “identify tools the United States can use to secure among trading partners a permanent moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions.” Just when those tools will be identified, and implemented, is unknown.

However the administration’s intent is clear: Big Tech should not be taxed by any nation other than the US, which itself struggles to tax its top tech companies thanks to the tax minimization schemes the OECD deal was designed to dent.

Original Submission