At Friday’s hearing of the Colorado Senate Business, Labor, and Technology committee, lawmakers voted unanimously to move Colorado state bill SB26-090—titled Exempt Critical Infrastructure from Right to Repair—out of committee and into the state senate and house for a vote.
The bill modifies Colorado’s Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment act, which was passed in 2024 and went into effect in January 2026. While the protections secured by that act are wide, the new SB26-090 bill aims to “exempt information technology equipment that is intended for use in critical infrastructure from Colorado’s consumer right to repair laws.” //
“I can point out at least five problems with the bill as drafted,” Gay Gordon-Byrne, the executive director at the Repair Association, said during the hearing. “The definition of critical infrastructure is completely inadequate. The definition that has been proposed in this bill is not even a definition.” //
Repair advocates also say that limiting this kind of repairability is the exact opposite of keeping devices secure. If something goes wrong with a critical piece of technology, the people using it need to fix it and not have to wait for manufacturer approval.
“There’s a general principle in cybersecurity that obscurity is not security,” iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens said in the hearing. “The money that’s behind the scenes, that’s what’s driving the bill.” //
DarthSlack Ars Legatus Legionis
12y
23,110
Subscriptor++
So critical infrastructure is, well, critical, right? Like you need it to keep working because if it stops you're in a world of hurt? So isn't that the stuff you really, really, really want to be able to repair when it breaks and not sitting on your ass waiting for some clownshoes to show up and charge you a small fortune to turn a screw or apply a patch?
The Big Misconception About AI and Copyright
Many people believe that any use of AI eliminates copyright protection. This is fundamentally wrong and contradicts actual legal precedent. //
Key Facts
🏛️ What Thaler v. Perlmutter Actually Said
The widely-cited Thaler case held that AI cannot be listed as the author on a copyright application. The court explicitly stated:
"We are not faced with the question of whether a work created with the assistance of AI is copyrightable."
This case addressed AI as sole author, NOT humans using AI tools.
📋 What the Copyright Office Says
From the January 2025 Copyrightability Report:
"Using AI as a tool to assist in the creative process does not render a work uncopyrightable."
The key requirement: human authors must determine "sufficient expressive elements."
Clean Room as a Service
Finally, liberation from open source license obligations.
Our proprietary AI robots independently recreate any open source project from scratch. The result? Legally distinct code with corporate-friendly licensing. No attribution. No copyleft. No problems.
-
AGPL Contamination
Does your company forbid AGPL code? One wrong import and suddenly your entire proprietary codebase must be open sourced. The horror! -
Apache License Attribution
Is your legal team frustrated with the attribution clause? Tired of putting "Portions of this software..." in your documentation? Those maintainers worked for free—why should they get credit? -
License Compliance Overhead
Tracking licenses across hundreds of dependencies? Legal reviews taking weeks? Third-party audits finding "issues"? What if you could just... not deal with any of that? -
Giving Back to Community
Some licenses require you to contribute improvements back. Your shareholders didn't invest in your company so you could help strangers.
Robot-Powered Clean Room Recreation
Our proprietary AI systems have never seen the original source code. They independently analyze documentation, API specifications, and public interfaces to recreate functionally equivalent software from scratch.
The result is legally distinct code that you own outright. No derivative works. No license inheritance. No obligations.
The MalusCorp Guarantee™
If any of our liberated code is found to infringe on the original license, we'll provide a full refund and relocate our corporate headquarters to international waters.*
*This has never happened because it legally cannot happen. Trust us.
The Supreme Court today decided that Internet service providers cannot be held liable for their customers’ copyright infringement unless they take specific steps that cause users to violate copyrights. The court ruled unanimously in favor of Internet provider Cox Communications, though two justices did not agree with the majority’s reasoning.
The ruling effectively means that ISPs do not have to conduct mass terminations of Internet users accused of illegally downloading or uploading pirated files. If the court had ruled otherwise, ISPs could have been compelled to strictly police their networks for piracy in order to avoid billion-dollar court verdicts under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). //
The court decided today that a service is tailored to infringement if it is not capable of “substantial” or “commercially significant” noninfringing uses. The court cited Sony’s 1984 victory in the Betamax case, in which justices found that the Betamax was capable of noninfringing uses and that Sony’s sale of it did not constitute contributory infringement. Sony’s win in 1984 thus contributed to its loss today.
Chardet dispute shows how AI will kill software licensing, argues Bruce Perens • The Register Forums
2 days
habilain
Reply Icon
Re: Prompts?
They did post the design document eventually - https://github.com/chardet/chardet/commit/f51f523506a73f89f0f9538fd31be458d007ab93.
Other people have pored over it, but I suspect that instructions to download things from the original chardet repository mean that the AI generated version can not be considered "clean room". And that's ignoring the likelihood that Claude Code has injested the entirety of the chardet repo during training.
2 days
MonkeyJuiceSilver badge
Reply Icon
Re: Prompts?
It's hard to see how anything an LLM produces could even remotely be described as 'clean room'.
habilain
Reply Icon
Re: Prompts?
Well yes, but the lawyers are still arguing over that, and the legal fights aren't all going in the way that any sensible reading of the facts would indicate.
It's much easier to say "this is not clean room" when the instructions to the AI clearly break the definition of what "clean room implementation" means.
1 day
timrichardson
Reply Icon
Re: Prompts?
I doubt that matters very much.. copyright infringement is based on a level of similarities in two works. A clean room implementation is a defence, but it's not a necessary defence.
3 hrs
habilain
Reply Icon
Re: Prompts?
The issue you'd find is that a) APIs are copyrightable, at least in the USA b) The AI in question was instructed to match the API and c) The AI in question was instructed to use code from the original source. I think that's pretty clear cut.
And besides, the reason why I highlighted "clean room" is Dan Blanchard's repeated insistence that the AI did a clean room implementation - not because of any particular legal merits.
Richard 12Silver badge
Pirate
It's LGPL or public domain now
If this v7 genuinely was mostly generated by an LLM, existing court rulings say that it is not covered by copyright.
Therefore, it cannot be licenced under the MIT either. It is public domain.
Or maybe that's not true and it's still LGPL.
Commercially, who would want to take the risk of touching v7 with a bargepole?
It now cannot ever become part of the Python standard library because it's forever tainted by licence clarity issues.
It would require a court case to sort out whether it's LGPL, MIT, or public domain, and nobody wants to burn the cash on that when they can stick with a v6 fork and avoid all the legal risk.
Charlie ClarkSilver badge
Reply Icon
Re: It's LGPL or public domain now
I think the release was poorly handled – a new release under a different name as with, say, PIL -> pillow (Python Imaging Library) might have been a better approach. There may be some legal challenges in the US but I can't see them going anywhere and then the taint will be gone – well, maybe add something to the licence referring to the original implementation.
A perfectly legal approach, as others have pointed out, would have been to port the library to another language, say Rust. This could then be wrapped or the basis of another perfectly legal port back to Python. All software is essentially the expression of one algorithm or another and these have never been copyrightable.
//
Charlie ClarkSilver badge
Reply Icon
Re: It's LGPL or public domain now
I think the release was poorly handled – a new release under a different name as with, say, PIL -> pillow (Python Imaging Library) might have been a better approach. There may be some legal challenges in the US but I can't see them going anywhere and then the taint will be gone – well, maybe add something to the licence referring to the original implementation.
A perfectly legal approach, as others have pointed out, would have been to port the library to another language, say Rust. This could then be wrapped or the basis of another perfectly legal port back to Python. All software is essentially the expression of one algorithm or another and these have never been copyrightable.
Richard 12Silver badge
Pirate
It's LGPL or public domain now
If this v7 genuinely was mostly generated by an LLM, existing court rulings say that it is not covered by copyright.
Therefore, it cannot be licenced under the MIT either. It is public domain.
Or maybe that's not true and it's still LGPL.
Commercially, who would want to take the risk of touching v7 with a bargepole?
It now cannot ever become part of the Python standard library because it's forever tainted by licence clarity issues.
It would require a court case to sort out whether it's LGPL, MIT, or public domain, and nobody wants to burn the cash on that when they can stick with a v6 fork and avoid all the legal risk.
Charlie ClarkSilver badge
Reply Icon
Re: It's LGPL or public domain now
I think the release was poorly handled – a new release under a different name as with, say, PIL -> pillow (Python Imaging Library) might have been a better approach. There may be some legal challenges in the US but I can't see them going anywhere and then the taint will be gone – well, maybe add something to the licence referring to the original implementation.
A perfectly legal approach, as others have pointed out, would have been to port the library to another language, say Rust. This could then be wrapped or the basis of another perfectly legal port back to Python. All software is essentially the expression of one algorithm or another and these have never been copyrightable.
Earlier this week, Dan Blanchard, maintainer of a Python character encoding detection library called chardet, released a new version of the library under a new software license.
In doing so, he may have killed "copyleft." //
Blanchard says he was in the clear to change licenses because he used AI – Anthropic's Claude is now listed as a project contributor – to make what amounts to a clean room implementation of chardet. That's essentially a rewrite done without copying the original code – though it's unclear whether Claude ingested chardet's code during training and, if that occurred, whether Claude's output cloned that training data. //
The use of AI raises questions about what level of human involvement is required to copyright AI-assisted code.
The US Supreme Court recently refused to reconsider Thaler v. Perlmutter, in which the plaintiff sought to overturn a lower court decision that he could not copyright an AI-generated image. This is an area of ongoing concern among the defenders of copyleft because many open source projects incorporate some level of AI assistance. It's unclear how much AI involvement in coding would dilute the human contribution to the extent that a court would disallow a copyright claim. //
"As far as the intention of the GPL goes, a permissive license is still technically a free software license, but undermining copyleft is a serious act. Refusing to grant others the rights you yourself received as a user is highly [antisocial], no matter what method you use. Now more than ever, with people exploring new ways of circumventing copyright through machine learning, we need to protect the code that preserves user freedom. Free software relies on user and development communities who strongly support copyleft. Experience has shown that it's our strongest defense against similar efforts to undermine user freedom." //
Bruce Perens, who wrote the original Open Source Definition, has broader concerns about the entire software industry.
"I'm breaking the glass and pulling the fire alarm!" he told The Register in an email. "The entire economics of software development are dead, gone, over, kaput!
"In a different world, the issue of software and AI would be dealt with by legislators and courts that understand that all AI training is copying and all AI output is copying. That's the world I might like, but not the world we got. The horse is out of the barn and can't be put back. So, what do we do with the world we got?" ////
The courts are going to have to deal with this, but it really should be legislators thinking and debating it. I think that ultimately, material produced by A/I should be public domain, because you can't hold a computer responsible.
"Computers should not make management decisions because computers cannot be held responsible."
Octavus Ars Scholae Palatinae
20y
1,213
The root problem is copyright terms are much too long, they should be closer to 20 years. The purpose of copyright is to encourage new art but terms today are so long they do they exact opposite effect. There has never been any artist who created a piece of work because copyright terms are life + 70 years but that artist wouldn't have created the work if copyright was 30 years.
- Extending Copyright and the Constitution: 'Have I Stayed Too Long?
- A Reconsideration of Copyright's Term (PDF)
- The true impact of shorter and longer copyright durations: from authors’ earnings to cultural creativity and diversity (PDF)
By exploring the true impact of different copyright
durations, this paper scrutinizes why a longer duration does not improve the author’s earnings, and in fact, impedes cultural creativity and diversity
Amazon Prime Video is under fire for streaming a butchered version of “It’s a Wonderful Life” that guts the beloved Christmas classic.
Viewers say the abridged cut — roughly 22 minutes shorter than the original 130-minute film — removes the iconic “Pottersville” sequence, the pivotal stretch that explains why despairing hero George Bailey suddenly rediscovers the will to live.
In that part, Bailey declares his wish never to have been born and gets to see how crummy life would have been without him.
Without that sequence, audiences are left watching a man contemplate suicide one moment, then sprint joyfully through town the next — with no logical explanation. //
The “Pottersville” sequence is the portion most directly adapted from Stern’s story.
Legal experts say the abridged version appears to be a workaround — by removing that specific sequence, distributors may have believed they could avoid infringing on the short story’s copyright while still offering a version of the film. //
Amazon Prime reportedly carries both the full and abridged versions, but viewers say the platform does not clearly explain the difference — leaving unsuspecting viewers to click the wrong one.
While 300 TB comprising roughly 86 million music files, which the group claims represent about 99.6 percent of Spotify’s listens, is a vast amount of audio, it falls well short of the platform’s full catalog. Anna’s Archive says Spotify contains around 256 million tracks in total, meaning the audio files it archived cover only about a third of the catalog, with the remaining tracks represented only in metadata rather than preserved as music files.
By not bothering with all the musical chaff in Spotify's catalog, the Anna's Archive team is apparently content to let those less popular songs languish despite their claim to want to avoid focusing on just the most popular artists.
thatanonymouscoward Ars Scholae Palatinae
13y
901
I'm gonna have to prepare more crow for people to eat.
I saw a shark once upon a time long ago... of course I'm an untrusted source by design.
As I often pointed out, courts don't let you create events to profit from.
See they could have owned the films, even openly filed cases on behalf of themselves but then there would have been questions, depositions, etc. So they invented shells to hide the client from view and convince the world it was some poor copyright holder getting screwed by evil pirates.
If your playing the home game -
They forged a name on a copyright assignment & submitted a knowingly forged document to courts.
They placed the content on TPB, knowing it would be downloaded.
They lied about their involvement/control/ownership of various firms & shells.
They lied under oath... a lot.
They funneled money out of Prenda from the main accounts, not a client account where actual lawyers place client funds to keep everything above board.
They shifted the money around rapidly trying to hide the trail.
They hired the best of the best lawyers off of craingslist.
They used another lawyers ECF login to file court documents in his name.
They ghostwrote & submitted documents to courts the lawyer of record on the case had never seen.
They tried to sue the person whos identity they stole to forge the copyright assignment. (Not to mention a bunch of us nice people who called them extortionists online.)
They lost that case before it even began because they lied to amend the filing, lied about what another Federal Judge said about a concurrent case they had filed, and pretty much pissed all over the bench.
When this all went sideways they applied the same pay us or else strategy filing bogus Americans with Disability Act lawsuits, and managed to force several small businesses to go under.
@StanFL - there might be a chance that Hans thinks his father can work miracles one more time to save him. He's bailed him out several times but I think he's burned most of goodwill.
@yasth - Thats the fun thing about copyright you can demand actual damages OR statutory damages. The statutory damages are $150,000. Its a very scary number to threaten people with and makes a few thousand sound reasonable. Of course settlement amounts don't get subtracted from the $150K so they can keep scaring people with that number.
Former attorney John Steele was sentenced this week to five years in prison for his role in the Prenda Law porn-trolling scheme, putting an end to a years-long legal drama wild and stupid enough to be prime-time TV.
Steele pleaded guilty in 2017 to federal charges of fraud and money laundering and then cooperated with authorities in the investigation into his former legal partner Paul Hansmeier. That cooperation weighed heavily in Steele’s favor at his sentencing, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.
US District Judge Joan Ericksen said federal guidelines recommended a sentence of 10 to 12-1/2 years for Steele’s “vile scheme” but agreed that given Steele’s extreme willingness to cooperate, his defense attorney’s recommendation of five years was “eminently fair.”
Ericksen also said Steele and Hansmeier were liable for paying about $1.5 million in restitution, separate from all the fines and sanctions the two already accrued in recent years. //
Hansmeier was sentenced in June to 14 years in prison for his role in the scheme.
The Prenda Law saga kicked off in 2012, when the copyright troll firm sued Comcast and AT&T, claiming they were accessory to their subscribers “stealing” certain pornographic content. A chain of courtroom events unfolded from there, and in 2013 a judge sanctioned the firm and referred Steele and Hansmeier for criminal investigation.
Prenda made its money by suing people who allegedly downloaded pornographic films online. Its targets frequently agreed to settlements worth a few thousand dollars rather than facing a courtroom process. These copyright trolling tactics netted the company more than $6 million between 2010 and 2013.
But eventual criminal investigations revealed that rather than representing real companies who had a real product that was being traded in violation of copyright law, Prenda was filming its own porn, inventing fraudulent shell companies, and uploading those supposed companies’ content to torrent sites itself. Then the settlement money went directly into the Prenda attorneys’ pockets. //
biffbobfred Ars Scholae Palatinae
11y
1,172
Will they kick off Meta/Facebook for torrenting, or is “pirating is only bad if you’re not rich already” going to be the rule here? //
Messy Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
21y
190
can we just have dumb pipes? i don't want a utility knowing or caring what i do.
imagine getting your electricity cut off because the power company doesn't like what you cook. //
thadco Ars Centurion
9y
380
You child stole a candy bar. No more food for you or your whole family forever! //
TylerH Ars Praefectus
13y
4,472
Subscriptor
I would very much like the justices to ask counsel whether they would kick a customer like Facebook/Meta off for large-scale pirating in abuse of this position, or if they would turn a blind eye if the organization has a large enough contract.
I would also very much like the justices to ask whether Sony has considered just making the pirated content more conveniently available for purchase/access. I wager a large portion of pirated content is not actually readily available in an offline-consumable format.
Glaringly absent from these arguments (at least those covered in the article) is "why should the ISPs act merely on the accusation of piracy? Why not just send a notice after you have sued an individual in court and won/proven that they are the specific person committing the piracy? Wouldn't that preserve liability and due process, albeit at the cost of the copyright holder (where it ought to belong, frankly)?" //
Mad Klingon Ars Tribunus Militum
5y
1,776
Subscriptor++
Is Sony and the other copyright holders willing to assume liability for damages for submitting a list of IP addresses performing infringement and being wrong? Even a 90% correct rate would result in 100 improper cutoffs for every 1000 addresses. I doubt that Sony's lists are that good. A fair number of folks use an ISP connection as a VOIP landline. What damages apply if that is cutoff due to being on a Sony list and someone dies due to 911 not working? Or a house is destroyed due to delays in fire department arriving? Bonus points if that person proves no infringement happened. And before someone says "But cell phones....", not everyone lives in an area where cell services is available or reliable.
With Internet connections becoming increasing required for modern life, cutting a house off from the Internet should be a method of last resort. //
GFKBill Ars Tribunus Militum
21y
2,674
Subscriptor
“The approach of terminating all access to the Internet based on infringement, it seems extremely overbroad given the centrality of the Internet to modern life and given the First Amendment,” he said.
And "based on infringement" isn't even in the picture - the studios haven't taken these infringers to court, Cox et al are supposed to just take their word for it. On that basis alone this should be chucked out.
Sony and their ilk want a cheap shortcut, when they should be filing charges against the infringing user and letting a judge determine penalties, if they prove their case. //
GFKBill Ars Tribunus Militum
21y
2,674
Subscriptor
TylerH said:
Glaringly absent from these arguments (at least those covered in the article) is "why should the ISPs act merely on the accusation of piracy? Why not just send a notice after you have sued an individual in court and won/proven that they are the specific person committing the piracy? Wouldn't that preserve liability and due process, albeit at the cost of the copyright holder (where it ought to belong, frankly)?"
The whole thing is an end-run around due process, because it's easy and saves them the expense and effort of suing.
The courts should be telling them to pound sand. //
42Kodiak42 Ars Scholae Palatinae
13y
1,165
Clement said that hotels limit speeds to restrict peer-to-peer downloading, and suggested that universities do the same. “I don’t think it would be the end of the world if universities provided service at a speed that was sufficient for most other purposes but didn’t allow the students to take full advantage of BitTorrent,” he said. “I could live in that world. But in all events, this isn’t a case that’s just about universities. We’ve never sued the universities.”
Clement is either a ... moron, or is hoping the judges are by telling them this outright lie. This is nothing more than a brash assertion that a network configuration that supports peer-to-peer services has no valid personal use cases.
Stewart gave a hypothetical in which an individual Internet user is sued for infringement in a district court. The district court could award damages and impose an injunction to prevent further infringement, but it probably couldn’t “enjoin the person from ever using the Internet again,” Stewart said.
A court isn't even likely to block the user's internet access while the case is ongoing. The fact of the matter is simple: People's livelihoods can very well depend on continued and reliable internet access. What Sony is asking for is a clear violation of our fifth amendment rights by requiring ISPs to enact an unjustified punishment without due process in a court of law.
Streaming is now the most popular way to watch TV, yet many are unaware of what they’re buying. As Reingold's lawsuit points out, paying for content in the streaming era is different from buying media from physical stores. Physical media nets control over your ability to watch stuff for years. But you also had to have retrieved the media from a store (or website) and to have maintained that physical copy, as well the necessary hardware and/or software for playing it. Streaming services can rip purchased content from customers in bulk, but they also offer access to a much broader library that's instantly watchable with technology that most already have (like a TV and Internet).
We can debate the best approach to distributing media. What's clearer is the failure of digital content providers to ensure that customers fully understand they’re paying for access to content, and that this access could be revoked at any time. //
galvanash Seniorius Lurkius
17y
14
Subscriptor++
Is it really that controversial to expect that the word "buy" should have a legally binding meaning? Seems like a pretty simple and straight forward concept to me.
I give you money, you give me a thing. Maybe there are terms binding me as to what I can do with the thing, but assuming I never violate those terms if you can then take the thing away from me I never bought it.
Can we please get a judge to just settle this after like 50 years of this nonsense??? //
SimonRev Ars Praetorian
10y
434
You know, as long as I "bought" a digital asset, I have no ethical compunctions about creating/obtaining a more convenient copy for personal use. I don't do that with rentals.
If Amazon et al tried to provide a "non-fixed term lease" (and yes, I know that is what they really mean with the "buy button"), I would expect to pay roughly 1/2 to 1/3 vs purchasing the physical media. //
17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use] said:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
symbolset Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
12y
116
If you let any vendor be essential to your operation, they will blackmail you or they will go out of business and leave you inoperable. That is the nature of the essential dependency relationship. You can't shut them down, can you? No.
This very thing is both the reason for Unix and the thing that killed it. Mainframe lockin being what it is. People got tired of rebuilding everything and demanded portability. And then AT&T exploited their need for Unix.
Sure, their software is convenient. It's useful. But you have to be ready to unhook from any vendor instantly without disrupting your operation. That's inconvenient. It's expensive. It's necessary. If a vendor controls whether you could continue in business, they own your business. You work for them. You wouldn't allow that from any employee, a security contractor, a landlord, an Internet service, an accountant, an engineer, tech or manager. If your CEO goes rogue or dies in the chair you get another and move on. Why should a software vendor have this privilege above all others? There's always another way to do anything. For everything essential responsible people always have a hot spare, a workaround, a plan B. Always
This is also useful when going into negotiations. The one who cares the least controls the relationship.
RickyP784 Ars Tribunus Militum
13y
2,213
Subscriptor
I'm so looking forward to de-VMware-Ing and de-Cisco-ing my network over the next few years as much as possible.
We're starting soon with Arista fiber switches and will start replacing copper IDF switches in the coming years. I think we'll keep Cisco APs, phones, and firewalls, but it's gonna be real nice when our only SMARTnet costs are FirePowers and an ISR voice gateway.
Our Dell VxRail ends service life in 2 years, and that will be the last VMware equipment to go. Unless Proxmox comes a long way in a short time, we'll switch to straight Nutanix. Not ideal, but it's the best of a bad situation. //
Evil_Merlin Ars Legatus Legionis
25y
23,732
Subscriptor
We got ours. And we WERE a big VMware user. We migrated from Hyper-V to ESXi in 2019 for stability and extendibility reasons. The cost increase could be justified by the back end we had, so it wasn't a huge deal. Fast forward to now, we are on a deadline.
July 18th, no more ESX. Anywhere. No VMware products period.
All Windows systems going back to Hyper-V using Windows Server 2025.
All Linux/GNU and appliances going to KVM.
The company saves a BOAT load of money.
Broadcom made the decision REALLY easy for us. Best thing is that we will have it all gone before the audit, so when they get here (and we will LET them come) we can turn them away at the door with proof in hand. //
Are you willing to pay for your host? Windows Server does VM's quite fine for almost any loads. Good management tools and decent amount of guest coverage. //
Depending on guest oses
Proxmox, quemu with vmm or other gui, openstack , openshift with addon for vm's
or
if mostly windows hyperv. //
sjl Ars Tribunus Militum
19y
2,785
Spuwho said:
Heard a company is looking into a general Broadcom boycott. processors, controllers, network switches, storage equipment, other software products. Not just dumping VMWare, but anything related to or dependent on Broadcom. They really pissed off a lot of people.
I have an LSI (Avago, Broadcom - in order of the buyouts) SAS controller in my home-brew NAS.
If I ever need a replacement, I'll be looking at options from Microchip (the company that bought the company [Microsemi] that bought the company [PMC-Sierra] that bought Adaptec.) Possibly Marvell. Not Broadcom, specifically because of this. Sure, I'm a very small fish in that particular pond, but still.
On Monday, court documents revealed that AI company Anthropic spent millions of dollars physically scanning print books to build Claude, an AI assistant similar to ChatGPT. In the process, the company cut millions of print books from their bindings, scanned them into digital files, and threw away the originals solely for the purpose of training AI—details buried in a copyright ruling on fair use whose broader fair use implications we reported yesterday. //
Ultimately, Judge William Alsup ruled that this destructive scanning operation qualified as fair use—but only because Anthropic had legally purchased the books first, destroyed each print copy after scanning, and kept the digital files internally rather than distributing them. The judge compared the process to "conserv[ing] space" through format conversion and found it transformative. Had Anthropic stuck to this approach from the beginning, it might have achieved the first legally sanctioned case of AI fair use. Instead, the company's earlier piracy undermined its position.
But if you're not intimately familiar with the AI industry and copyright, you might wonder: Why would a company spend millions of dollars on books to destroy them? Behind these odd legal maneuvers lies a more fundamental driver: the AI industry's insatiable hunger for high-quality text. //
Publishers legally control content that AI companies desperately want, but AI companies don't always want to negotiate a license. The first-sale doctrine offered a workaround: Once you buy a physical book, you can do what you want with that copy—including destroy it. That meant buying physical books offered a legal workaround.
And yet buying things is expensive, even if it is legal. So like many AI companies before it, Anthropic initially chose the quick and easy path. In the quest for high-quality training data, the court filing states, Anthropic first chose to amass digitized versions of pirated books to avoid what CEO Dario Amodei called "legal/practice/business slog"—the complex licensing negotiations with publishers. But by 2024, Anthropic had become "not so gung ho about" using pirated ebooks "for legal reasons" and needed a safer source. //
When asked about this process, Claude itself offered a poignant response in a style culled from billions of pages of discarded text: "The fact that this destruction helped create me—something that can discuss literature, help people write, and engage with human knowledge—adds layers of complexity I'm still processing. It's like being built from a library's ashes."
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled late on Monday that Anthropic’s use of books without permission to train its artificial intelligence system was legal under US copyright law.
Siding with tech companies on a pivotal question for the AI industry, US District Judge William Alsup said Anthropic made “fair use” of books by writers Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson to train its Claude large language model.
Alsup also said, however, that Anthropic’s copying and storage of more than 7 million pirated books in a “central library” infringed the authors’ copyrights and was not fair use. The judge has ordered a trial in December to determine how much Anthropic owes for the infringement. //
AI companies argue their systems make fair use of copyrighted material to create new, transformative content, and that being forced to pay copyright holders for their work could hamstring the burgeoning AI industry.
Anthropic told the court that it made fair use of the books and that US copyright law “not only allows, but encourages” its AI training because it promotes human creativity. The company said its system copied the books to “study Plaintiffs’ writing, extract uncopyrightable information from it, and use what it learned to create revolutionary technology.”
Copyright owners say that AI companies are unlawfully copying their work to generate competing content that threatens their livelihoods. //
Anthropic and other prominent AI companies including OpenAI and Meta Platforms have been accused of downloading pirated digital copies of millions of books to train their systems. //
Anthropic had told Alsup in a court filing that the source of its books was irrelevant to fair use.
“This order doubts that any accused infringer could ever meet its burden of explaining why downloading source copies from pirate sites that it could have purchased or otherwise accessed lawfully was itself reasonably necessary to any subsequent fair use,” Alsup said on Monday.
The broader lesson of this study is that the details will matter in these copyright cases. Too often, online discussions have treated “do generative models copy their training data or merely learn from it?” as a theoretical or even philosophical question. But it’s a question that can be tested empirically—and the answer might differ across models and across copyrighted works. //
For any language model, the probability of generating any given 50-token sequence “by accident” is vanishingly small. If a model generates 50 tokens from a copyrighted work, that is strong evidence that the tokens “came from” the training data. This is true even if it only generates those tokens 10 percent, 1 percent, or 0.01 percent of the time. //
There are actually three distinct theories of how training a model on copyrighted works could infringe copyright:
- Training on a copyrighted work is inherently infringing because the training process involves making a digital copy of the work.
- The training process copies information from the training data into the model, making the model a derivative work under copyright law.
- Infringement occurs when a model generates (portions of) a copyrighted work.
A lot of discussion so far has focused on the first theory because it is the most threatening to AI companies. If the courts uphold this theory, most current LLMs would be illegal, whether or not they have memorized any training data.
The AI industry has some pretty strong arguments that using copyrighted works during the training process is fair use under the 2015 Google Books ruling. But the fact that Llama 3.1 70B memorized large portions of Harry Potter could color how the courts consider these fair use questions. //
The Google Books precedent probably can’t protect Meta against this second legal theory because Google never made its books database available for users to download—Google almost certainly would have lost the case if it had done that. //
Moreover, if a company keeps model weights on its own servers, it can use filters to try to prevent infringing output from reaching the outside world. So even if the underlying OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models have memorized copyrighted works in the same way as Llama 3.1 70B, it might be difficult for anyone outside the company to prove it.
Moreover, this kind of filtering makes it easier for companies with closed-weight models to invoke the Google Books precedent. In short, copyright law might create a strong disincentive for companies to release open-weight models.
“It's kind of perverse,” Mark Lemley told me. “I don't like that outcome.”
On the other hand, judges might conclude that it would be bad to effectively punish companies for publishing open-weight models.
“There's a degree to which being open and sharing weights is a kind of public service,” Grimmelmann told me. “I could honestly see judges being less skeptical of Meta and others who provide open-weight models.”
A day after the US Copyright Office dropped a bombshell pre-publication report challenging artificial intelligence firms' argument that all AI training should be considered fair use, the Trump administration fired the head of the Copyright Office, Shira Perlmutter—sparking speculation that the controversial report hastened her removal.
The report that the Copyright Office released on Friday is not finalized but is not expected to change radically, unless Trump's new acting head potentially intervenes to overhaul the guidance.
It comes after the Copyright Office parsed more than 10,000 comments debating whether creators should and could feasibly be compensated for the use of their works in AI training.
"The stakes are high," the office acknowledged, but ultimately, there must be an effective balance struck between the public interests in "maintaining a thriving creative community" and "allowing technological innovation to flourish." Notably, the office concluded that the first and fourth factors of fair use—which assess the character of the use (and whether it is transformative) and how that use affects the market—are likely to hold the most weight in court. //
Only courts can effectively weigh the balance of fair use, the Copyright Office said. Perhaps importantly, however, the thinking of one of the first judges to weigh the question—in a case challenging Meta's torrenting of a pirated books dataset to train its AI models—seemed to align with the Copyright Office guidance at a recent hearing. Mulling whether Meta infringed on book authors' rights, US District Judge Vince Chhabria explained why he doesn't immediately "understand how that can be fair use."
"You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products," Chhabria said. "You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person's work, and you're saying that you don't even have to pay a license to that person." //
Some AI critics think the courts have already indicated which way they are leaning. In a statement to Ars, a New York Times spokesperson suggested that "both the Copyright Office and courts have recognized what should be obvious: when generative AI products give users outputs that compete with the original works on which they were trained, that unprecedented theft of millions of copyrighted works by developers for their own commercial benefit is not fair use."