derekslater.bsky.social
226 posts
871 followers
930 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
yeah, I like to say that this better ways forward project is a 'slow burn' because it's occluded by the heat and smoke of the (c) wars, to say nothing of other obstacles.
But maybe I'm just bad at pitching the idea and getting resources 😜 collaborators/pointers welcome
comment in response to
post
don't have a (good) answer, except that think it probably starts with some convening and bridge building where different ppl don't argue about training / fair use and just focus on the rest of the canvas. Just for a day or two at least. I'd take an hour frankly. To be continued...
comment in response to
post
yes, we need a broader canvas
comment in response to
post
sure, but I don't know who's saying that?
comment in response to
post
yes - which is why the link I sent is interesting, I think
comment in response to
post
maybe we end up doing the same slog as before, but that seems like just giving up and a lack of imagination - would rather at least try to make the world a little better / less bad than it otherwise would be.
comment in response to
post
in the alternative, we can just do what happened last time - lurch from "links and snippets are infringing" to "ancillary copyright" to "forced bargaining over links and snippets" to ... well, in California, we actually finally had a proposed ad tax to pay journalists proposal last year.
comment in response to
post
setting aside US fed budget, I don't expect anyone to back away from the (c) fight while the lawsuits are ongoing. But it would be nice if there was a binder full of better approaches, strategies of how to get them done local/state/fed/ elsewhere, and a coalition to back em as things change
comment in response to
post
yeah, think the more nuanced take (relevant to prior convos) is - highly performant models will still be possible, regardless of what happens with licensing reqs/markets. Clearly a performance difference, but if one fears "automation", not going away via (c) (see also 'what copyright can't do')
comment in response to
post
Last time I checked Ireland wasn't in the U.S., big world of policy out there ;-) More generally/seriously, I don't really get the point - because of 'tech fascism oligarchy', we should expand copyright instead? stop designing better policy solutions until we fix democracy?
comment in response to
post
more seriously - whatever you think of UBI, good to see a wider canvas of ideas beyond licensing ever tinier slices of intangibles (e.g. rights for use in AI training) and praying for trickle down economics to work - see also: www.techpolicy.press/ai-training-...
comment in response to
post
Yep, and kudos to @jtlg.bsky.social et al for papers helping make sense of the ambiguity here
comment in response to
post
Ah , meant to direct to the links down the 🐰hole in that post
comment in response to
post
Fair enough, altho ambiguity of Attribution element, "reasonable manner," isn't totally new.
comment in response to
post
I think you're referring to a different post? This goes thru considerations for license compliance, not relying on L&E
comment in response to
post
Icymi: creativecommons.org/2025/05/15/u...
comment in response to
post
Can there be ♾️ NPRMs too?
comment in response to
post
😅 sorry, sorry, I got overexcited from someone else making the point about the convergence with telecom. I'll leave rate setting I mean compulsory licensing I mean program access over in the corner where it belongs.
comment in response to
post
(an aside: interesting how the Florida social media ban ruling looked at this too, inc the "special characteristic" that meant this class only got Turner scrutiny. #telric4ever)
comment in response to
post
so, different choices are possible, different telescopes looking at different parts of the galaxy, different types of tea, etc :-)
comment in response to
post
(NB - one other thing for a longer bit of tea is the delta in what we seem to see as the 'industry' or use of the tech. Your points with Brian are about consumer angle and the Web and about 5 companies as 'the industry.' My day to day work is also with a bunch of other stakeholders, companies.)
comment in response to
post
yep, like I've said, totally fine to opt-out. My pt was that participants supporting FU are capable of not being pro-fascists; it's quite practical, even if some alliances can be uncomfortable, now more than ever, and that's often part and parcel of being a principled advocate.
comment in response to
post
fair enough. So to tie it off - if reasonable people can disagree in good faith, then I don't get this statement, "no practical way": bsky.app/profile/chup...
comment in response to
post
yeah, like I said, a bit of a tangent. Related in the sense of "What Copyright Can't Do," and the idea that holding a principled position about FU means supporting fascism or destruction of creators' livelihoods or ...
comment in response to
post
This is a very strange postscript to "What Copyright Can't Do"
comment in response to
post
Not following. Say the FU cases are quite restrictive. How does that stop YouTube or Adobe from training on the data that they have licenses for.
comment in response to
post
Not following. I provided a set of possible policy paths (consistent framing in your works) to address a concern. And the problem is that I didn't solve fascism too? Is fascism the magical 5th fair use factor? What are you brewing in your tea? 😅
comment in response to
post
also, as I said in the article, why wouldn't record labels train their own models (or: www.bloomberg.com/news/article...)?
comment in response to
post
Not following what that has to do with Adobe's cache of licensed content.
comment in response to
post
fine, and law & policy are still team sports. I pointed to other paths of possible tea brewing -- if you have stronger, please provide!
comment in response to
post
Adobe has licenses from its millions of contributors. Who is going to sue to shut them down, what's the cause of action, etc? alternatively, who is going to have the ability to withdraw a significant amount of that data, and why would they stop taking the incremental revenue tomorrow?
comment in response to
post
Are rightsholders going to blow up e.g. Adobe?
comment in response to
post
The only way to brew that tea is by bringing a lot of people together, getting around the identified dead-ends, and accepting that the work is hard, possibly fruitless. Going back to the beginning of this thread - I agree that people who aren't up for that shouldn't do public policy or law :-)
comment in response to
post
UMG in their testimony to Congress last year. Ed Newton Rex and Fairly Trained are all about how great licensed models are. See also the implication of: www.aitrainingstatement.org
comment in response to
post
so what, for purposes of this article? again, there are already high quality, licensed models, and advocates say those models are only going to get more powerful.
comment in response to
post
not following - what is 'strong tea'? yes, if one assumes nothing can work and it's not even worth trying, then everything is 'weak tea.'
comment in response to
post
Not following - as noted earlier in the piece, the licensing advocates promise that high quality AI will still be widely available. Indeed, they say that such high quality, licensed AI is already possible now.
comment in response to
post
Just this morning, rumors of record labels licensing generative AI companies. Ihttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-01/record-labels-in-talks-to-license-music-to-ai-firms-udio-suno?embedded-checkout=true
comment in response to
post
ok, so I had a longer, somewhat orthogonal piece in route ;-) www.techpolicy.press/ai-training-...
comment in response to
post
*piracy
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/chup... - like "there's no way to argue for reasonable secondary liability rules without being in favor of mass theft and privacy" ⏰♻️
comment in response to
post
Seems highly unlikely that building a bigger data moat around incumbents will lead to less concentration. Even so, we are far away from your original statement that it is "impractical" to argue for fair use and against oligarchy.
comment in response to
post
Not even sure which companies we mean, but if Big Tech gets bigger / has a bigger most...
comment in response to
post
Ok, then to put a finer point - anti fair use is more entangled with oligarchy. It further concentrates power in industry
comment in response to
post
That's true for most antimonopoly policies?
comment in response to
post
More seriously , pro fair use is the antimonopoly position, so, sure. But pertinent to other notes in this 🧵 - not consumer or the web per se. I don't get how this is a battle Royale of ppl you hate
comment in response to
post
No, I'm using the World Peace fair use framework