JSpitzen 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (97) comment rss

  • On the post: Congrats To Elon Musk: I Didn’t Think You Had It In You To File A Lawsuit This Stupid. But, You Crazy Bastard, You Did It!

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2023 @ 11:38am

    Musk's Lawyer

    You can see who Musk hired on the last page of the filing. One of the lawyers is a former Solicitor General of Texas, Judd Stone. Interestingly, there's an asterisk next to his name and a footnote that says "Admission Pending" so, at some point, we went from being SG of Texas to being unlicensed in Texas.

  • On the post: Sarah Silverman’s AI Case Isn’t Going Very Well Either

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2023 @ 08:38am

    Hughes

    Life is too short (mine anyway) to summarize the next level of detail of Hughes' positions. Also, I'm on the fence about the optimal "right answer" to this set of issues. I encourage anyone who wants to dig deeper to watch the Youtube whose link I posted earlier. You'll also get to hear Pamela Samuelson disagree with Hughes oin many points.

  • On the post: Sarah Silverman’s AI Case Isn’t Going Very Well Either

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2023 @ 05:56pm

    What about the inputs?

    I agree that no one has put forth evidence of any specific wrongdoing in the creation of the models that might give rise to liability. Hughes (who I had no previously known about and who Mike tells us is a maximalist) does not claim the contrary--he just argues that it is worth looking into. I imagine that, in some future case, it will get looked into.

  • On the post: Sarah Silverman’s AI Case Isn’t Going Very Well Either

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2023 @ 05:11pm

    Potential Sources of Liability

    Without commenting specifically on the Silverman case, I think it remains worth a look at the higher level issue. Obviously a Llama system is not substantially similar to the i.p. of the plaintiff. With very high probability, the outputs of the Llama system are neither substantially similar to, nor derivative works of, the plaintiff's i.p. (but beware corner cases). However, we generally do not know what went into building and training that system and it is possible that infringement occurs at some such earlier point that contaminates whatever happens afterward.

  • On the post: Sarah Silverman’s AI Case Isn’t Going Very Well Either

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2023 @ 11:26am

    Might Generative AI Infringe Copyright?

    There are some interesting and more nuanced arguments worth perusing on this subject. TI recommend this Harvard Law School webinar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p-mzF2IBiM in which Pamela Samuelson (who, I assume, most everyone is familiar) debates with Justin Hughes, an i.p. law professor who I hadn't come across previously. Pamela argues for the position that generative AI generally does not infringe but Justin has some interesting counterarguments.

  • On the post: By Making Its Porn Age Verification Law A ‘Bounty’ Law, Utah Able To Deflect Challenge To The Law’s Validity

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2023 @ 06:25pm

    Absence of Immediate Injunctive Relief

    I appreciate all the thoughtful commentary since I posted my initial comment. I agree with everyone who thinks (as I do) that the approach of this statute is very problematic--a sham to delay judicial relief from an unconstitutional law. As Mike says, that delay is likely to have some (maybe a lot of) chilling effects. So, I hope some more enlightened court(s) will, in future, see this type of statute for the sham it clearly is. Until then, what I proposed is the best I can think of.

  • On the post: By Making Its Porn Age Verification Law A ‘Bounty’ Law, Utah Able To Deflect Challenge To The Law’s Validity

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2023 @ 02:41pm

    SB 8 Style Statutes

    Since the Utah statute is structured (similar to the Texas SB 8 statute) so that enforcement is only via a private right of action, one must think about the issue raised by Mike: "It’s possible that this challenge will now need to wait until someone actually tries to enforce it, which raises a lot of risks, as whoever is targeted may not be in the best position, or have the best strategy or lawyers for challenging the law." What if someone employing qualified counsel (e.g., the ACLU) just waits for the early private actions brought under the law, then approaches the defendants and volunteers to provide counsel pro bono? It's not as good as pre-enforcement litigation but it lets strategically positioned defense counsel pick out an attractive defendant (or maybe the first few suitable defendants) and initiate attacks on the law, perhaps leading to early injunctive relief. I think this is a decent tactiv to respond to this type of statute.

  • On the post: Stability AI And DeviantArt Ask Court To Dismiss Artists’ Silly Lawsuit Against Generative Art

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2023 @ 03:41pm

    What's a derivative work?

    I know the answer given by the statute but bare with me as I set out a hypothetical. Say I have two images, both protected by copyright, both consisting of a 100x100 grid of 4 bit points (00 is white, 11 is black and the remaining options are shades of gray). Suppose I construct a third 100x100 image by "averaging" the two inputs (with some choice of rules about how I "average" o1 with 10 etc.). Is the result of that process a derivative work of the starting points? Say I use 4 input grids instead of 2--does that change the answer? Say I use 100 input grids and 50 of them are public domain images. I'll be interested to hear how the TechDirt community thinks this ought to be analyzed.

  • On the post: In The Last Six Months Techdirt’s Antispam Algorithm Has Stopped Over A Million Spam Comments; Should We Lose 230 Protections For That?

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2023 @ 10:50am

    Please elaborate

    I am speculating about a scenario where sites that moderate (via anti-spam technology and/or a hybrid of technology and manual methods) have liability but sites that allow comments without moderation are not subject to that liability. As everyone agrees, in that scenario, the raw data feed of a site that does not moderate becomes unreadable because it is buried in spam. Why cannot a 3rd party filtering service, perhaps from outside the U.S., solve of mitigate that problem?

  • On the post: In The Last Six Months Techdirt’s Antispam Algorithm Has Stopped Over A Million Spam Comments; Should We Lose 230 Protections For That?

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2023 @ 10:22am

    "What If" Scenario "Plan B"

    The following question may have been asked and answered before but I could use a refresher. I assume that, for a small to medium operation like Techdirt, the anti-spam system mainly works in the cloud and that, as a practical and technical matter, the servers in the cloud could be based in some optimal (for certain purposes) non-U.S. location. So if TechDirt were forced to abandon its own anti-spam measures, could it not provide a raw data feed to a remote server that deployed the same, or equivalent, technology? Then couldn't any of us who wished look at that filtered data instead of the raw data? Wouldn't this avoid any liability on the part of Techdirt? Someone please tell me the defect in this scheme.

  • On the post: Wyoming ‘Bans’ Electric Cars In Dumb Performative Oil Industry Ass Kissing

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2023 @ 05:55pm

    A Different Approach

    Surprising that the legislators behind this bill haven't offered up some alternative arguments, e.g., that electric vehicles/charging.batteries facilitate (a) violation of state criminal bans on abortion or (b) censorship targeted at conservatives.

  • On the post: AI Creator Offers $1 Million He’ll Never Have To Pay To Anyone Willing To Let His Lawbot Argue Their Supreme Court Case

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 17 Jan, 2023 @ 02:17pm

    Another use for AI

    For the reasons stated in the article, it cannot/will not be done. But one could train (some future version of) ChatGPT on the relevant data (US Code, Federal Reports, briefs, Amicus briefs, oral argument transcripts, etc.) and ask it to write opinions in the styles of Kagan, Jackson, Thomas etc. Results might be entertaining.

  • On the post: Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Twitter And Hunter Biden’s Laptop

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 07 Dec, 2022 @ 02:06pm

    Evidence

    To summarize the heart of Mike's argument, there is no evidence of anything nefarious. BUT, consider, how muddled is this whole topic. Surely one would expect at least some evidence of almost anything (the age of the universe, the death of God, etc.). Thus the flaw in Mike's argument that there is no evidence: the absence of any evidence that might implicate nefarious activities is, intrinsically, evidence of nefarious activities.one would expect to exist is, itself, evidence of nefarious activities. Q.E.D. (By the way, this entire comment is intended as humor.)

  • On the post: How The Dobbs Decision Will Lead To Attacks On Free Speech; Or, Why Democrats Need To Stop Undermining Free Speech

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2022 @ 02:01pm

    Dobbs / Free Speech

    Would anyone like to join me in gaming out how this might work in practice? Momentarily putting aside the very real threat of tech companies taking the sheepish "safe" course in the face of such laws, think about the exact text in play: "knowingly or intentionally hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service, purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this state, that provides information on how to obtain an illegal abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an illegal abortions" It ought to be easy to find jurisdictions--some outside the U.S.--where one could host or maintain a website designed to promulgate information. That website needn't make its messages "purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this state" as it could just be directed to the entire population of people who might be interested in how to procure a legal abortion. It could even make users, before getting to the data, promise that they wouldn't do anything illegal. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that those steps work, the remaining danger is this part of the language (which I am deliberately editing to focus on one of the worst case applications: "providing access to an internet website ... that provides information ... reasonably likely to be used for an illegal abortions" I don't see an immediate way around that part of the language but, if the information is out there somewhere in the universe, it's going to be awfully hard to enforce that restriction. Feedback is welcomed.

  • On the post: Court Tells Cops That Legally Owned Guns Are Evidence Of Nothing, Order Return Of Seized Money

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2022 @ 04:14pm

    Response re Taxes

    See Item 69 on page 11 of the judicial opinion attached in PDF form to the article. I wasn't speculating or drawing unfair inferences, just quoting the judge reciting what Mr. Franklin had to say in court.

  • On the post: Court Tells Cops That Legally Owned Guns Are Evidence Of Nothing, Order Return Of Seized Money

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2022 @ 11:47am

    Still an unhappy outcome for Mr. Franklin

    An unhappy side effect for Mr. Franklin is that the IRS now knows that he doesn't pay taxes on his income. They are going to take from Mr. Franklin a larger sum of money than will be returned to him because of this victory.

  • On the post: Thankfully, Jay Inslee's Unconstitutional Bill To Criminalize Political Speech Dies In The Washington Senate

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2022 @ 12:29pm

    Larry Tribe

    Could someone explain when/why Larry Tribe got classified as highly biased? All the references I've found to him on Techdirt are quite positive (e.g., "famed constitutional scholar, Laurence Tribe"). What did I miss?

  • On the post: Mother's Lawsuit Attempts To Hold Snapchat, Instagram Responsible For Her Daughter's Suicide

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 27 Jan, 2022 @ 10:21am

    Proximate Cause / Strict Liability

    I agree with almost everything in this article--just going to take issue with one niggling detail. The article says that you cannot argue "proximate cause" while also arguing "strict product liability." I think it's rare that one would have circumstances that allow for both causes of action but it is possible. If you have an inherently dangerous product (e.g., water heater with defective heat sensors or pressure release valves that make it prone to explode), there can be strict liability and there is no need for a plaintiff making that argument to also prove that the defendant's negligent conduct proximately caused the alleged injury. But you can imagine a situation where there was also proximate cause (e.g., imagine the water heater was sold with a label saying "Prone to explode--stay at least 100 feet away at all times" and the retailer had replaved that label with one saying "All reported defects have been repaired").

  • On the post: Yet Another Study Shows Mainstream Media Is A Key Vector In Spreading Misinformation

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2021 @ 07:57pm

    Apolgies for my multiple typos ...

    ...but it is a serious post about an important issue and, as I said at the end, I welcome the reasoned feedback of the Techdirt community.

  • On the post: Yet Another Study Shows Mainstream Media Is A Key Vector In Spreading Misinformation

    JSpitzen ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2021 @ 05:53pm

    I have been looking for an excuse to comment ...

    ... on an article in today's NYTimes that alleges (plausibly to me but others may disagree) that a pair of yound men, one in Alabama and one in Uruguay, are running a series of websites that give people information about how to commit suicide. Anyone who is about to reply to my post--please have a look at the article first.

    There are clearly a large group of voices in the metaverse who are not fond of, and would prefer to limit, the rights of free speech granted by the 1st Amendment. Some of those voices would say that they were fine with the 1st Amendment and just wanted to limit Section 230. Many of the writers/posters on this forum (e.g., Ms. Gellis) have explained, articulately and persuasively, the problem with that approach and why Section 230 is needed to buttress the rights granted by the 1st Amendment. I certainly agree with those defenses of Section 230 so please to nto take this post otherwise.

    Another point often made on this forum by defenders of 1st Amendment rights is that people regularly miunderstand, misquote and misuse the "shouting fire" words from Holmes in the 1919 Schenck decision. As we all know, that is no longer good law, having been replaced by the "imminent lawless action" test articulated in Brnadenberg and clarified in Hess.

    This latest study reported by Mike emphasizes afurther point that, in very many cases, what is said online is merely repeatig what has been said in conventional media and that, therefore, the response of those who attack the internet or attack Sec. 230 is misguided. I can see many instances where that is correct but today's NYTimes article is a challending counterexample.

    The internet is allowing/facilitating some number of people--generally young people--suffering from mental health issues to kill themsleves. They are doing so using a suicidal technique I would not have know about before today and which most of these young people would not know about in the absence of the internet (as it would not otherwise be so widely broadcast as to reach this health-challenged audience). So, in this instance, this latest argument based on the internet just repeating what legacy media has already said does not work.

    What does the Techdirt community think about that? One possible answer is to say, per the typical Sec. 230 debate, that anyone with a complaint should deal with the people publishing their advice about how to commit suicide. Another possible answer is to say that whether or not commit suicide is a personal choice that should not be subject to governmental or other regulation so everything is fine as is. A third possible answer is to say that there is no practcal way to sanction/regulate the suicide-facilitation speech of the speakers in question without doing major damage to the critically important rights granted by the 1st Amendment.

    In the particular fact pattern of this article, the first of these choices fails. The second and third are possibilities and, I guess, I lean towards number 3 (which I am guessing will be the overwhelming preference of the Techdirt community).

    I will be interested to hear what everyone else has to say about this.

Next >>