In The Vacuum Of AI Legislation, Libraries Have The Playbook

Policy

from the always-listen-to-librarians dept

The White House AI framework made official what we already knew: this administration has no interest in regulating AI. Any legislation that contradicts the framework will be a dead end. In this regulatory vacuum, it is instructive to turn to norms developed by libraries and archives through their decades of experience working through the same core issues that are now animating AI debate: understanding copyright law; providing machine access to data; contextualizing information; and adhering to responsible stewardship obligations to communities.

The Google Books Library Project can be instructive. In the mid-2000s, research libraries partnered with Google to digitize and preserve millions of volumes in their collections. To solve the problem of how to store and provide access to a massive number of scanned books, research libraries banded together to create HathiTrust, a secure, searchable repository that remains in use today. Of course, this didn’t happen without legal challenges. Authors Guild separately sued Google and HathiTrust for copyright infringement in what came to be known as the “Google Books” cases. But these cases ultimately established the legal precedent that copying books to create a digital searchable database is fair use. Based on this precedent, research methods such as text and data mining are possible because of mass digitization, and lawful under fair use.

Based on Google Books and other litigation, libraries put a stake in the ground when it comes to copyright law: training AI models on copyrighted works generally is fair use, a position articulated by the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) in 2023, and updated in light of recent court decisions. In two of those decisions, Kadrey v. Meta and Bartz v. Anthropic, judges held that training AI models on copyrighted works is transformative and therefore fair use. It’s worth noting that these cases are in a commercial context. It is likely that a court would rule in favor of AI uses in educational, research, and scholarly contexts, as those are favored uses under fair use.

Meanwhile, disagreements over AI safety, harm prevention, bias mitigation, and abuse have held up federal AI legislation in the US. But these are not new problems for libraries, which have developed norms to balance the collection and preservation of sensitive information in archives and special collections with the imperative to provide the broadest possible user access to digitized content. One example is the 2010 ARL principles to guide vendor/publisher relations in large scale digitization projects with special collections, which calls for libraries to make material available to the public while providing context to aid in the understanding of that material. Libraries have also developed frameworks for stewarding materials of vulnerable communities and historically marginalized groups, like the Library of Congress access policy on culturally sensitive materials relating to Indigenous peoples, which includes transparent procedures for controlled access and use of culturally sensitive materials.

Congress has also been legislating in the dark around issues like transparency and provenance in AI training, and many of the proposals we have seen so misunderstand these concepts that they threaten to bring the university-based research enterprise to a halt. Libraries already do what Congress is trying to mandate — authenticating, contextualizing, and documenting collections — but the legislation is too disconnected from this expertise, and as a result unworkable for the institutions that actually practice rigorous provenance.

As AI governance debates continue to stall on Capitol Hill, library norms offer a foundation for approaching AI training and research in a way that is responsible, steeped in library expertise, and advances the public interest.

With gratitude to Betsy Rosenblatt, Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University Law School

Katherine Klosek is the Director of Information Policy and Federal Relations at the Association of Research Libraries.

Filed Under: ai, ai policy, copyright, fair use, librarians, libraries

Tech Companies Fail To Kill Colorado’s ‘Right To Repair’ Law

Policy

from the fix-your-own-shit dept

Last month we noted how tech companies, automakers, and others were trying to kill Colorado’s existing “right to repair” law, which is supposed to make it cheaper and easier to repair the things you own.

More specifically, tech companies like Cisco and IBM were pushing Colorado lawmakers to sign off on  SB26-090, the Exempt Critical Infrastructure from Right to Repair law, which would neuter much of the state’s existing protections under the pretense of making the public safer.

After previous journalism from the likes of Ars Technica and Wired drew some unwanted attention, the effort appears to have failed, according to Wired:

“SB26-090 was introduced during a Colorado Senate hearing on April 2 and was supported by lobbying efforts from companies such as Cisco and IBM. It passed that hearing unanimously. The bill then passed in the Colorado Senate on April 16. On Monday evening, the bill was discussed in a long, delayed hearing in the Colorado House’s State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. Dozens of supporters and detractors gave public comments. Finally, the bill was shot down in a 7-to-4 vote and classified as postponed indefinitely.”

Like many similar efforts, tech companies falsely tried to convince lawmakers that making things cheaper and easier to repair would pose entirely new privacy and security risks, and that independent repair shops would be prone to make constant and dangerous mistakes. Pre-Trump Lina Khan era FTC studies had repeatedly indicated those claims are false.

In this case, IBM and Cisco had tried to use an updated definition of “critical infrastructure” that was so large and vague as to render all the protections meaningless. While they failed this time, they’ll be back. Countless companies, across countless industries, are desperate to boost revenues by monopolizing repair and driving up the cost of ownership for consumers and other companies alike.

Unfortunately, while all fifty states have at least flirted with the idea, only Massachusetts, New York, Texas, Minnesota, Colorado, California, Oregon, and Washington have actually passed laws. And of those states, not one has actually managed to enforce their new laws despite no shortage of targets, something that gets curiously omitted by most reporting, and indicates the movement has a lot of work left to do.

Filed Under: colorado, hardware, lobbying, repair, right to repair, software, tech

Kash Patel’s ‘Leadership’ Is Pretty Much Just Libel Lawsuits And Lie Detectors

Failures

from the failing-upward-administration dept

Kash Patel is one of the rare Trump political appointees who actually has some experience that might be useful in his current position. But it wasn’t his past experience as a federal public defender and prosecutor that prompted Trump to elevate him to the post of FBI Director. Instead, it was his willingness to engage in politically motivated investigations, along with his willingness to host pro-MAGA podcasts when their original hosts were in prison on federal charges.

Patel serves at the president’s pleasure, as all political appointees do. But Trump’s pleasure is more unpredictable than most. Perhaps realizing his time frame for making hay is extremely short, Patel has done very little in terms of leadership, preferring to spend his time (allegedly) partying it up when not (allegedly) failing to gain the trust and respect of the Bureau.

When not saying stupid things on social media or during press conferences, Patel likes to leverage his position to do things like… hang out in the US Olympic hockey team locker room as they celebrated their gold medal win.

Consequently, plenty has been published about Patel’s (alleged) inability to stay sober and/or do his damn job. A shocking expose of Patel’s (alleged) constant insobriety prompted Patel to respond in the fashion he’s been accustomed to during his tenure as FBI Director. He filed a libel lawsuit against The Atlantic over its reporting on his months of (allegedly) unprofessional behavior.

Hilariously, Patel and his lawyers relied on a previous lawsuit he had filed against MSNBC for its earlier reporting on pretty much the same subject, taking particular objection to this statement made by reporter Frank Figliuzzi:

Yeah, well, reportedly, he’s been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover building. 

Perhaps he should have waited until his first lawsuit had been fully litigated. The lawsuit he used as part of his arguments in favor of “actual malice” was dismissed, with the judge finding in favor of MSNBC and Figliuzzi.

So, this is one the things Patel seems to be involved in daily, which isn’t actually a part of his day-to-day duties as FBI Director. The other thing he seems to be doing on a regular basis is ensuring the people who still work for him won’t want to work for him for much longer.

FBI Director Kash Patel ordered the polygraphing of more than two dozen former and current members of his security detail, as well as other staff, and has been described as being in panic mode to save his job and find leakers among his team, according to two people briefed on the development.

[…]

The director has also avoided meeting this week with some key operational leaders of the bureau, the people said, raising concerns inside the FBI about Patel’s ability to stay abreast of pressing threats and investigations in order to make the best decisions.  

Will this reporting prompt another lawsuit from Kash Patel? I would hope his lawyers are smarter than Patel appears to be, because going back to the same well so quickly following a libel lawsuit loss might add sanctions to the humiliation of another public loss in a federal court.

The funniest thing about this reporting is that the FBI official spokesman, Ben Williamson, refused to deny the use of polygraph tests, instead deciding to deny the assertion that Patel isn’t regularly attending meetings with key FBI officials. It’s not like Williamson couldn’t have just lied about the polygraphs. This is an administration that is willing to lie about pretty much anything at any time. Having their lies exposed doesn’t regularly result in firing, which means blatantly lying has nearly no professional consequences. But Williamson just decided to ignore a question he didn’t want to answer.

The refusal to even address this claim implies that it’s true. And why shouldn’t it be? This is nothing new for Kash Patel and his particular version of the FBI:

Since Kash Patel took office as the director of the F.B.I., the bureau has significantly stepped up the use of the lie-detector test, at times subjecting personnel to a question as specific as whether they have cast aspersions on Mr. Patel himself.

In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts. In one instance, officials were forced to take a polygraph as the agency sought to determine who disclosed to the news media that Mr. Patel had demanded a service weapon, an unusual request given that he is not an agent. The number of officials asked to take a polygraph is in the dozens, several people familiar with the matter said, though it is unclear how many have specifically been asked about Mr. Patel.

Those were the (alleged) facts on the ground as of July 2025. Since then, Patel hasn’t done much to distance himself from allegations of misusing his position for personal gain, whether it’s trying to get special treatment from the Bureau itself, or crashing Olympic celebrations just because he can.

I find it hard to believe even Patel himself thinks he’s actually leading the FBI. After all, this is the same guy who (allegedly!) thought he’d been fired when he bungled one too many login attempts. But he’s the perfect guy for the Trump administration: someone who spreads falsehoods, yells “fake news” whenever publicly criticized, files lost-cause lawsuits against people protected by the First Amendment, and will quietly accept his dismissal whenever Trump decides to turn on him.

Filed Under: alliteration, failure, fbi, kash patel, leaks, lie detector tests, polygraphs, trump administration

Daily Deal: The Modern Tech Skills Bundle

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Bring your tech skills up to 21st-century snuff with the Modern Tech Skills Bundle. This 2,000+ class series covers subject areas that every aspiring tech pro needs to know to get ahead and stay ahead. Broken out into cybersecurity, AI and machine learning, and information technology and cloud computing, you’ll be able to zero in on specific courses for your current field and branch out into new ones. It’s on sale for $70.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Elon Musk Settles SEC Lawsuit For Spare Change, Proving Once Again That Rules Are For Other People

Legal Issues

from the the-consequence-free-elite dept

There are perks to spending over a quarter of a billion dollars getting your preferred candidate elected. A multi-month free pass to take a sledgehammer to the federal government, for starters. And, apparently, a sweetheart deal when the SEC comes knocking with a lawsuit for which they had you dead to rights.

As you’ll recall, when Elon Musk first started buying up Twitter stock, before he officially decided to buy the whole company, he blew past the SEC-mandated deadline to reveal publicly that he had accumulated over 5% of the stock. Indeed, Musk waited until he held nearly 10% of the company’s stock before revealing his position at all. Many shareholders were rightly pissed off about this, because it likely diminished the value of their shares. There’s a reason the law says you need to disclose crossing that 5% line.

And, to be clear, this isn’t one of those gray areas of the law. This is a case where Elon pretty clearly violated the law in very obvious ways. But because the Biden admin was so terrified of looking even remotely biased against Elon, the SEC took nearly three years investigating the case (and yes, part of that was Elon trying to ignore investigatory demands) before finally suing him… in the last week of the Biden admin.

I’m somewhat amazed it took this long, but earlier this week, the Trump SEC announced a settlement. Despite the blatant flouting of the rules — which likely cost Twitter shareholders millions of dollars — the settlement requires Elon to pay $1.5 million. That’s basically pocket change to the world’s richest man. It’s not even a slap on the wrist, which might sting a bit.

And, of course, plenty of people are noticing what kind of signal this sends during one of the most corrupt US Presidential administrations in history:

“I do think that it suggests if you’re wealthy or powerful enough then there aren’t going to be consequences,” said Fagel, who previously led the SEC’s San Francisco office. “The optics of this are terrible.”

Perhaps in the grand scheme of things this doesn’t much matter. No real fine was going to matter much to Elon Musk. He has enough money to be shielded from effectively any monetary punishment — they could fine him 99% of his wealth and he’d still be richer than basically anyone reading this.

But it’s this kind of thing, and the lack of real consequences for it, that undermine our trust in institutions and the rule of law. The message being sent is hard to miss: if you’re wealthy enough and loyal enough to Trump, the rules simply don’t apply to you.

Filed Under: donald trump, elon musk, sec
Companies: twitter

Share-Owning Journalism Orgs Press Paramount For Company Docs On Corrupt Trump Merger Dealings

Legal Issues

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

More than 4,000 Hollywood insiders recently signed a letter blasting Paramount’s planned $111 billion merger with Warner Brothers, noting that the massive consolidation will be very historically harmful to labor, consumers, and creatives. That’s a very correct observation, especially as it relates to Warner Brothers, which has never been involved in a merger that didn’t result in mass layoffs, higher prices for everyone, and a significantly shittier overall product.

Now a coalition of press groups, including Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and Reporters Without Borders, are pressing Paramount regarding “potentially corrupt acquisitions and deals” they argue could undermine shareholder value by degrading the (already sagging) quality of journalism at CBS News and CNN, while “relinquishing editorial control of major news outlets to the Trump administration.”

In a letter sent to former Trump DOJ “antitrust enforcer” (using that term ironically) turned Paramount top lawyer Makan Delrahim, the groups highlight all the dodgy bullshit that we’ve well-covered over the last year, whether it’s CBS paying the president a $16 million bribe to gain merger approval, CBS agreeing to install an “ombudsman” to ensure the network is consistently kissing the president’s ass, or Paramount billionaire owner Larry Ellison privately meeting with his friend Trump to promise he’d fire certain CNN anchors if the government allowed him to buy Warner Brothers.

The journalism groups make the point that the Ellison family effort to turn CBS into a Trump and Netanyahu-friendly agitprop machine has been disastrous for the company’s share price. And because both organizations are technically shareholders, they’re demanding deeper access to the Paramount books to see what other dodgy bullshit may not have been revealed yet:

“Since Paramount Skydance announced its most consequential Trump-friendly changes at CBS News in October — acquiring The Free Press and appointing Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief — the company’s market capitalization has decreased by 40%, wiping out more than $8 billion in shareholder value. Ratings for key programs, like “CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil,” have also dropped precipitously. Freedom of the Press Foundation and Reporters Without Borders, which are both shareholders in Paramount Skydance Corp., are entitled to inspect the company’s books and records related to these developments under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.”

They’ve given Paramount five days to respond to their request for more documents and data related to any promises Paramount may have made the Trump administration. I’m not convinced the gambit will go anywhere, but it’s nice to see these kinds of groups (historically absent from many of these fights) suddenly paying closer attention to media consolidation.

Larry Ellison’s interests here are two-fold. He wanted to gift his nepobaby son David with two major Hollywood studios so David can pretend he’s a very big boy doing very serious things. But he’s also keen on dismantling what’s left of journalism at places like CBS News and CNN (already reeling from years of corporate cowardice) turning them into right-wing friendly agitprop mills that are even more friendly to his favorite autocrats (Trump and Netanyahu).

You’ll recall Bari Weiss sold herself to Paramount as an expert who could modernize CBS News through virality and mass audience appeal (despite having no actual experience in journalism). But Weiss, who got her start at the helm of a strange contrarian troll blog, has the instincts and ideas of a 90 year old man, and clearly isn’t capable of generating watchable propaganda in any ratings-grabbing way that actually appeals to anyone (even MAGA folks, who already have no limit of agitprop options).

The Trump administration will certainly rubber stamp the deal. Paramount will likely keep this effort locked up in the courts indefinitely. And the Democrats’ demand for the FCC to investigate the dodgy Chinese and Saudi financing propping up the deal isn’t likely to go anywhere. That leaves a collaborative looming lawsuit by state AGs as the most likely path toward ensuring this deal never gets off the ground.

But even if the deal gets approved, this giant company’s long-term survival is far from guaranteed. Especially given the shaky state of Hollywood, the steady enshittification of streaming, and the fact that there’s very little evidence that the any of the Paramount folks are competent.

There’s a very high likelihood that the combination of Paramount’s massive debt load from both the CBS and Warner deals– and fleeing audience (either bored by bad product or disgusted by the companies’ Trump allegiances) — combines with Larry Ellison’s over-extension on AI to result in some very precarious financial footing.

These major media deals always go terribly for consumers and labor, but execs often benefit from tax breaks, temporary stock boosts, and compensation in no way dictated by competency (see: CEO David Zaslav). But this series of deals is so massive and problematic, it could generate some very significant pain for the extraction class, and make all past merger disasters seem adorable by comparison.

Filed Under: consolidation, corruption, david ellison, journalism, makan delrahim, media, merger, press
Companies: freedom of the press foundation, paramount, reporters without borders, warner bros. discovery