The non-profit Internet Archive ( IA ) aims to preserve digital history for generations to come.

The organization literally archives key parts of the Internet, copying older versions of websites to preserve them for future generations. This information becomes more and more valuable as time passes by.

IA has plenty of other archive projects too. For example, it operates a library that offers a broad collection of digital media, including books, which patrons can borrow upon request.

Thousands of libraries have digital lending services but IA’s approach is different. The organization doesn’t license authorized digital copies from publishers; instead, its books are scanned and digitized in-house. Each copy can only be loaned to one person at a time, to mimic the lending attributes of physical books.

Lawsuit and Appeal

Internet Archive believes that its approach falls under fair use but publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley, and Penguin Random House disagree. They filed a lawsuit in 2020 equating IA’s controlled digital lending operation to copyright infringement.

Earlier this year a New York federal court concluded that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement . The court’s decision effectively put an end to IA’s self-scanning library, at least for books from the publishers in suit.

IA is not letting go without a fight and in December the non-profit filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to reverse the judgment. Among other things, IA argued that its lending activity causes no financial harm is substantially different from the ebook licensing market.

Fearing a ‘Napster moment’ for books , the publishers rejected the notion that outsiders can run their own digitization programs and operate distribution platforms, without rightsholders being involved. Rightsholders should remain in control of all digital copies to be monetized on their terms.

Both sides were supported by amicus briefs from interested parties, a clear indication of what’s at stake in this dispute. Before the court case moves forward, however, IA replied to the publishers’ Napster comments and other critiques.

IA Points Out ‘Critical Misconceptions’

The Archive maintains that its lending service is fair use. The organization points out that the publishers have several misconceptions about its service.

IA points out that it doesn’t lend out digital copies without limits. For each physical book, it will only lend a single digitized copy at the time. This fixed “owned-to-loaned ratio” sets it apart from many of the copyright-infringing services mentioned by the publishers..

“Controlled digital lending is not equivalent to posting an ebook online for anyone to read or copy or to peer-to-peer file-sharing by companies like Napster. Neither practice is based on use of a library’s lawfully acquired physical copy, and neither ensures that only the one person entitled to borrow the book (or recording) can access it at a time.”

IA further notes that it has no profit motive, which differs from companies that resell digital copies without permission. In addition, the enormous work that goes into digitizing the books makes it hard for others to do the same, so fears of a flood of similar services are overblown.

“[B]ecause of the huge investment required to operate a legally compliant controlled lending system and the controls defining the practice, finding fair use here would not trigger any of the doomsday consequences for rightsholders that Publishers and their amici claim to fear,” IA writes.

Libraries Have Broad Missions

The brief goes on to counter the publishers’ “cramped” view of what libraries are for. Libraries are not just outfits that lend physical books to people nearby; their missions are much broader.

IA says that libraries make books available to a broad public, no matter their social status or location. They also preserve books for future generations and ensure that readers can enjoy books without giving up their privacy.

“Libraries provide readers more egalitarian access to a wider range of books, overcoming socioeconomic and geographic barriers by sharing resources with other libraries through interlibrary loans.”

“They also build permanent collections to preserve books, including older editions, for future generations. And they protect reader privacy, preventing disclosure of patron records that could chill access to information,” IA adds.

IA’s lending service advances this mission and was launched, in part, because the current ebook licensing schemes are seen as too restrictive.

A “Copyright” Balancing Act

The parties broadly agree on what the lending program entails and how it operates from a technical perspective. However, it’s the purpose and consequences that mostly determine whether a service is ‘fair use’, and here they have diametrically opposing views.

The publishers have argued that IA offers digital copies of their books without permission, which directly competes with its legal licensing business.

IA, in turn, doesn’t deny that copyrights play a role but stresses that its controlled lending is fair use. The reply highlights several arguments to make this point and concludes that the scale clearly tips in its favor.

The reply brief notes that the lower court didn’t properly balance the interests required by copyright law, largely overlooking the benefits the service has to the public at large, while strongly focusing on the financial aspect of copyright instead.

“[The District Court] decision barely mentions copyright’s ultimate purpose of ‘promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts’. Publishers do not deny that IA’s use serves this purpose; instead, they ask the Court to ignore that service and focus instead on copyright’s financial incentives for creativity.”

IA cites the Warhol Supreme Court case which made clear that fair use is a balancing act between the interests of the public and rightsholders. In this case, it believes that the balance favors its lending service.

“Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The district court’s failure to consider the latter contravenes decades of precedent recognizing that rewards are a secondary consideration, while promoting availability is primary,” IA informs the court.

“Here, the record shows that the balancing act between these purposes is better served by allowing the use than by preventing it,” IA concludes.

—

A copy of the Internet Archive’s reply brief, submitted at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Mercedes secoue le monde automobile avec le lancement de Drive Pilot aux États-Unis, le premier système de conduite autonome de niveau 3 commercialisé directement auprès des consommateurs. Ça y est les amis, le futur nous rattrape ! Bientôt, on pourra enfin lâcher le volant et vaquer à d’autres occupations pendant les longs trajets…

Concrètement, dans certaines conditions bien spécifiques, Drive Pilot permet au conducteur de détourner son attention de la route pour se concentrer sur des activités non liées à la conduite, comme consulter ses mails, surfer sur internet ou regarder un film. Mais attention, il faudra toujours rester prêt à reprendre le contrôle du véhicule à tout moment si nécessaire. J’imagine qu’en cas de problème, la voiture saura vous tirer de votre session de TikTok avec des bip bip.

Pour cela, Drive Pilot s’appuie sur une multitude de capteurs ultra-perfectionnés : caméras, radars, LiDAR, capteurs à ultrasons… Un véritable concentré de technologies de pointe pour analyser l’environnement en temps réel. Un puissant ordinateur de bord exploite ensuite toutes ces données pour prendre les meilleures décisions de conduite de manière autonome.

Il y a cependant quelques conditions à respecter pour pouvoir activer Drive Pilot : Le système ne peut être utilisé que sur certaines portions d’autoroutes spécifiques, avec un marquage au sol suffisamment clair et visible, une densité de trafic modérée à élevée et une vitesse limitée à 60 km/h . Ça fait beaucoup de conditions à la con quand même.

Le conducteur doit aussi rester visible par la caméra située au-dessus de l’écran conducteur. On est donc encore loin d’une conduite 100% autonome en toutes circonstances, mais c’est un premier pas très prometteur ! Pour l’instant, seuls les propriétaires des dernières Mercedes Classe S et EQS pourront profiter de Drive Pilot , moyennant un abonnement annuel à 2500$ (lol). Bref, c’est une technologie encore réservée à une élite friquée, mais on peut espérer que Mercedes la démocratisera rapidement sur des modèles plus abordables.

Malgré ses limitations actuelles, Drive Pilot représente une avancée majeure vers une conduite plus sûre, plus confortable et plus… productive. Fini le stress des embouteillages, ce temps pourra être mis à profit pour avancer sur son travail, discuter avec ses proches ou se détendre devant un bon film. Tout ça pendant que l’ IA gère la conduite de manière sereine et vigilante.

Bien sûr, de nombreux défis restent encore à relever avant de voir des voitures 100% autonomes partout sur nos routes. Les questions de responsabilité juridique en cas d’accident, de sécurité face au piratage ou encore d’éthique et de contrôle humain sont complexes. Et il faudra aussi s’assurer de la fiabilité totale du système pour éviter tout bug ou panne aux conséquences potentiellement dramatiques.

Mais une chose est sûre, la conduite autonome sera l’un des enjeux majeurs de la mobilité du futur . Avec des acteurs de poids comme Comma, Mercedes , Tesla ou Waymo qui investissent massivement sur le sujet, on peut s’attendre à des progrès rapides et à une démocratisation progressive de cette technologie dans les années à venir.

Source

Les générateurs d’images IA actuels comme Midjourney, Dall-E et j’en passe, font polémique puisqu’ils piochent allégrement dans les œuvres des artistes sans leur consentement ni rémunération. Mais des solutions sont en train de se mettre en place pour les entreprises qui souhaiteraient utiliser l’IA pour illustrer leurs supports sans pour autant piller les artistes.

Une de ces solutions, c’est Tess qui propose une approche que j’ai trouvée intéressante puisqu’elle met en place des collaborations avec des créateurs pour utiliser leur style dans des modèles de diffusion d’images.

Concrètement, chaque modèle d’IA est entraîné sur le style visuel d’un artiste unique, avec son accord puis l’outil utilise un SDXL custom (Stable Diffusion) pour générer les images. Évidemment, à chaque fois qu’une image est générée avec son style, l’artiste touche des royalties ! C’est gagnant-gagnant donc.

L’outil intègre également un système de métadonnées basé sur le protocole C2PA , qui permet d’identifier clairement les images générées par IA et de les distinguer des créations originales.

L’objectif de Tess est donc clair : démocratiser la création d’images artistiques de qualité, en la rendant accessible au plus grand nombre, tout en rémunérant équitablement les artistes et leur permettant de garder la maitrise de leur art. C’est une bonne idée vous ne trouvez pas ?

Et les artistes dans tout ça ? Et bien si j’en crois le site de Tess, ils sont déjà plus de 100 à avoir déjà sauté le pas, séduits par ce nouveau modèle de rémunération. Maintenant si vous voulez devenir clients de la plateforme, ce n’est malheureusement pas encore ouvert à tous, mais une liste d’attente est en place pour vous inscrire et être tenu au courant.

Ça va en faire des déçus chez les petits malins qui croyaient avoir trouvé la combine du siècle pour se faire du blé facile sur Medium en balançant des articles pondus par ChatGPT et compagnie ! La plateforme de blogs vient en effet de dégainer son bazooka anti-IA et de bannir purement et simplement le contenu généré artificiellement de son programme partenaire rémunéré. Eh oui, fini de laisser tourner GPT-4 à plein régime toute la nuit pour cracher des articles à la chaîne et les planquer derrière un paywall ! Medium a dit « Niet, c’est fini ça ! «

La sentence est tombée par mail dans la boîte des utilisateurs : à partir du 1er mai , c’est tolérance zéro pour les histoires 100% IA dans le programme de monétisation. Les récits conçus par une intelligence artificielle seront donc retirés des paywalls illico presto, et les comptes récidivistes pourront même se faire virer de la rémunération par Medium. Ça rigole plus !

Faut dire que la plateforme a une vision bien précise de son identité : un sanctuaire pour le storytelling humain , pas un repaire de scribouillards synthétiques.

Ok, ils sont ouverts à ce que l’IA file un coup de main pour peaufiner un texte ou aider à écrire dans la langue de Shakespeare quand on est rouillé en anglais. Mais que dalle pour les papiers écrits de A à Z par un algorithme, c’est no way !

« Medium, c’est fait pour les histoires humaines, pas pour les textes générés par l’IA « , martèle la plateforme dans son mail qui a dû faire l’effet d’une douche froide à plus d’un. En fait, si on y regardait de plus près, c’était déjà écrit noir sur blanc dans les guidelines de Medium : les histoires 100% IA, c’était déjà restreint à une diffusion limitée au petit cercle de l’auteur sur la plateforme. Pour utiliser l’IA en mode fair-play , faut jouer la transparence et le mentionner direct dans les 2 premiers paragraphes. Pareil pour les images générées par l’IA, qui doivent être identifiées et sourcées comme il faut.

Mais là, en virant le contenu IA de son programme de monétisation, Medium serre sérieusement la vis. Et si jamais vous tombez sur un de ces récits bricolés par un bot et que ça vous gonfle, pas de souci ! Il suffit de cliquer sur « Voir moins de contenu similaire » pour dire à Medium « Merci mais non merci, très peu pour moi ! » et ainsi limiter la propagation de ces histoires synthétiques.

Après soyons honnêtes, le contenu généré par l’IA, c’est souvent mal fait et on se retrouve avec une belle bouillie insipide qui manque de saveur. Étant abonné payant à Medium, je trouve que c’est pas une mauvaise nouvelle et j’imagine que bon nombre de plateformes vont leur emboiter le pas.

Source

Le géant américain n'abandonne pas son idée de monde virtuel, mais a émis de sérieux doutes quant aux intelligence artificielles génératives actuellement présentes sur le marché.

The Internet Archive (IA) is a non-profit organization that aims to preserve digital history for generations to come.

The digital library is a staunch supporter of a free and open Internet and began meticulously archiving the web over a quarter century ago.

In addition to archiving the web, IA also operates a library that offers a broad collection of digital media, including books. Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, IA patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house.

Publishers vs. Internet Archive

The self-scanning service offered by the Internet Archive (IA) differs from the licensing agreements entered into by other libraries. Not all publishers are happy with IA’s approach, resulting in a major legal battle two years ago.

Publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley, and Penguin Random House filed a lawsuit, equating IA’s controlled digital lending (CDL) operation to copyright infringement. Earlier this year a New York federal court concluded that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement .

The court’s decision effectively put an end to IA’s self-scanning library, at least for books from the publishers in suit. However, IA is not letting this go without a fight and in December the non-profit filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to reverse the judgment .

High Profile Support

The importance of this legal battle is illustrated by the large number of amicus briefs that are filed by third parties. Previously, IA received support from copyright scholars and the Authors Alliance, among others.

A few days ago, another round of amicus came in at the Court of Appeals, this time to back the publishers who filed their reply last week . In more than a handful of filings, prominent individuals and organizations urge the Appeals Court not to reverse the district court ruling, arguing that this would severely hamper the interests of copyright holders.

The briefs include positions from industry groups such as the MPA, RIAA, IFPI, Copyright Alliance, the Authors Guild, various writers unions, and many others. Legal scholars, professors, and former government officials, also chimed in.

RIAA, MPA, et al.

The RIAA and MPA submitted an amicus brief together with the NMPA and the News Media Alliance. These industry groups draw a parallel between the impact Napster and BitTorrent had on music and movie sales, and the threat IA’s self-scanning library poses today.

“Digital piracy has inflicted a huge economic toll on those industries and, by extension, on their ability to invest in new creative works and the artists who make them. Internet Archive’s theory of fair use represents a threat just as grave.”

Industry groups fear that if the Internet Archive is allowed to digitize and lend books, it could set a precedent for other forms of media. For instance, if services were able to lend music, movies, or news media to the general public, these industries might face similar challenges.

“Deeming Internet Archive’s mass reproduction and distribution program to be fair use would no doubt embolden not only Internet Archive itself but also other online platforms to freely ‘lend’ all types of copyrighted works to the public in digital formats,” they write.

“That would catastrophically harm the digital markets on which the music industry, the movie and television industry, the news industry, and similar industries depend to profitably create and distribute their works—and would thereby undermine the incentive for the creation of new works that copyright law exists to protect.”

According to the amici, there is nothing fair about IA’s digital library; instead, they see it as “unambiguous copyright infringement.”

Copyright Experts, Professors, and Lawmakers

A second amicus brief is submitted by more than a dozen professors and scholars of copyright and intellectual property law. They stress that IA’s practice should not be seen as “transformative” fair use, arguing that the library offers a “substitution” for books that are legally offered by the publishers.

This sets the case apart from current legal precedents including the Google Books case , where Google’s mass use of copyrighted books was deemed fair use.

“IA’s exploitation of copyrighted books is thus the polar opposite of the copying that was found to be transformative in Google Books and HathiTrust . IA offers no ‘utility-expanding’ searchable database to its subscribers. What it does offer is access to full-text books as a clearly competing substitute for the versions licensed by book publishers,” the legal scholars write.

Another amicus brief adds more heavyweight support for the publishers. This includes former judges and two dozen government officials and lawmakers, including Lamar Smith, former Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and Bob Goodlatte, former Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

This brief also rejects the Internet Archive’s fair use arguments, framing the library as a threat instead.

“IA does not further the public interest, but rather undermines incentives to create and disseminate books that benefit society. Thus, its actions are decidedly not protected by fair use,” their brief reads.

IA and AI

The final amicus brief we want to highlight comes from a broad collection international and regional trade groups from outside the United States. These include the International Publishers Association, the International Video Federation, and the Association of Canadian Publishers.

These groups also reject the fair use arguments. They stress that in addition to directly competing with the interests of publishers, IA’s library is also an indirect ‘artificial intelligence’ threat as the digitized books can be used as AI training material.

“The Internet Archive is an obvious source of high-quality works for AI training since these works have been professionally edited and improved by publishers. Entering the terms ‘Internet Archive DRM’ into any search engine results in a number of links to software tools that remove the Internet Archive’s DRM technology along with instructions on how to use it.

“Even if AI training is ultimately determined by U.S. courts to not be a fair use, Amici fear that the Internet Archive’s CDL collection has already been used as an AI training tool,” the international trade groups add.

In summary, the book publishers have plenty of external support for their legal battle. However, it remains to be seen whether any of these amici, including those in favor of IA, will influence the eventual outcome of the appeal.

—

Below is an overview of the amicus briefs that were filed over the past few days, all in support of the publishers.

– RIAA, MPA, NMPA, News Media Alliance .
– Former government officials, former judges, and intellectual property scholars .
– Copyright Alliance .
– Various organizations that represent the interests of writers and other creators .
– Professors and scholars of copyright and intellectual property law .
– International and regional trade bodies .

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its ‘Open Library’ to a pirate site.

IA’s library operates as a non-profit organization that scans physical books, which can then be loaned out in an ebook format. Patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house, with technical restrictions that prevent copying.

Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book. These restrictions were temporarily loosened at the height of the COVID-19 epidemic when IA launched the National Emergency Library.

Publishers vs. Internet Archive

The self-scanning approach differs from the licensing deals other libraries enter into. Not all publishers are happy with IA’s service which triggered a massive legal battle four years ago.

Publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley, and Penguin Random House filed a lawsuit, equating IA’s controlled digital lending (CDL) program to a piracy operation. Last year, a New York Federal court concluded that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement .

The Court’s decision effectively put an end to IA’s self-scanning library, at least for books from the publishers in suit, but IA isn’t prepared to let go without a fight. Last December, the non-profit filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to reverse the judgment .

Publishers Respond to IA’s Appeal

IA argued that its scanning-and-lending activities amount to fair use. They cited expert witnesses who concluded that there’s no financial harm and further argued that the service is substantially different from the ebook licensing market.

Late last week, the publishers filed a redacted copy of their reply brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. According to the companies, IA engaged in “massscale infringement” by making digital copies of physical books without permission from the works’ rightful owners.

The IA-digitized books are then lent to patrons instead of officially-licensed ebooks, which the publishers see as a direct threat to their rights and business.

“Controlled digital lending is a frontal assault on the foundational copyright principle that rightsholders exclusively control the terms of sale for every different format of their work – a principle that has spawned the broad diversity in formats of books, movies, television and music that consumers enjoy today,” the publishers write.

The publishers state that more than 93% of the public libraries in the US license ebooks through official channels. IA refuses to do so, arguing that making their own digital copies of legitimately purchased books amounts to fair use.

Not a VCR

IA views these digital copies as “transformative” and argues that its scan-and-digitize practice is fair use. In the appeal brief, the library equated it to the digital copies of video broadcasts, which people can legally make following the Betamax decision .

The publishers, however, maintain that IA’s lending operation is an effort to bypass official licensing channels, arguing that it has little to do with how people could use a VCR for private use.

“IA reaches far afield and twists Sony beyond recognition in an effort to manufacture some support. But Sony only held that it was fair use for users of Betamax machines to ‘time-shift’ free television programs ‘for private home use’.

“This bears no resemblance to IA’s massive book digitization project systematically distributing bootleg ebooks to the worldwide general public,” the publishers add.

The book publishers believe that IA is headed into uncharted waters, where no other library has ever gone. While IA sees its lending program as a logical and widely accepted step, the rightsholders frame it as a novel digital threat.

“Public libraries […] have never engaged in mass-digitization of millions of commercially available print books and distributed the resulting ebooks to anyone with an internet connection; they have never systematically evaded publishers’ terms of sale for specific formats like ebooks; they have never partnered with a used bookstore to funnel books to offshore scanning facilities..,” the publishers write.

All About Control

IA and several supporters , including the Authors Alliance and various copyright scholars, previously argued that publishers currently have too much power and control.

Allowing libraries to scan and digitize their books would certainly limit this control, but the publishers believe that’s clearly against the law.

“In short, IA’s practice of CDL is radical and unlawful. A decision deeming CDL fair use would have a dire impact on book publishing and all creative industries. Libraries around the country could skirt the current library ebook markets, fundamentally interfering with the Publishers’ digital strategies and destabilizing book markets,” they write.

A Napster Moment?

The publishers fear a ‘Napster moment’ for books if outsiders can run their own digitization programs and operate distribution platforms, without the involvement of rightsholders. Napster has shown that this is a viable threat and recent legal discussions surrounding the use of copyrighted works for AI training make this a very relevant issue today.

“Indeed, as technology companies ‘train’ generative AI products on vast numbers of books and other media, maintaining legal protection for derivative uses has never been more important,” the publishers note.

“The long-range disruptions in the music industry caused by Napster and other file sharers are a cautionary tale on the dangers of illicit copying that deprives rightsholders of the ability to control their markets.”

Interestingly, Napster’s existence arguably provoked the foundation of a new music industry model. It proved to be a large inspiration for innovators including Spotify’s Daniel Ek , who pioneered the music streaming business that generates most of the industry’s revenue today.

The publishers don’t elaborate on the broader implications of Napster, but they likely refer to the drastic decline in music sales that took place shortly after the service gained popularity.

The publishers ask the court to affirm the lower court’s decision, which currently prevents IA from lending out digitized copies of its books. The request is backed by a series of detailed legal arguments and citations in the full brief, which can be accessed here (pdf) .

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Les élèves ne sont pas les seuls à miser sur l'IA pour éviter de faire leur travail.

Les plateformes sociales stars des années 2000 se sont trouvées une nouvelle manne financière à l'éthique discutable.