Daily Archives: December 19, 2023

Internet Archive Files Opening Brief In Its Appeal Of Book Publishers’ wanton destruction of it

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, publishing giant Penguin Random House (and, yes, I’m still confused why they didn’t call it Random Penguin House after the merger) announced that it was filing a lawsuit (along with many others) against the state of Iowa for its attempt to ban books in school libraries. In its announcement, Penguin Random House talked up the horrors of trying to limit access to books in schools and libraries:

The First Amendment guarantees the right to read and to be read, and for ideas and viewpoints to be exchanged without unreasonable government interference. By limiting students’ access to books, Iowa violates this core principle of the Constitution.

“Our mission of connecting authors and their stories to readers around the world contributes to the free flow of ideas and perspectives that is a hallmark of American Democracy—and we will always stand by it,” says Nihar Malaviya, CEO, Penguin Random House. “We know that not every book we publish will be for every reader, but we must protect the right for all Americans, including students, parents, caregivers, teachers, and librarians to have equitable access to books, and to continue to decide what they read.” 

That’s a very nice sentiment, and I’m glad that Penguin Random House is stating it, but it rings a little hollow, given that Penguin Random House is among the big publishers suing to shut down the Internet Archive, a huge and incredibly useful digital library that actually has the mission that Penguin Random House’s Nihar Malaviya claims is theirs: connecting authors and their stories to readers around the world, while contributing to the free flow of ideas and perspectives that are important to the world. And, believing in the importance of equitable access to books.

So, then, why is Penguin Random House trying to kill the Internet Archive?

While we knew this was coming, last week, the Internet Archive filed its opening brief before the 2nd Circuit appeals court to try to overturn the tragically terrible district court ruling by Judge John Koeltl. The filing is worth reading:

Publishers claim this public service is actually copyright infringement. They ask this Court to elevate form over substance by drawing an artificial line between physical lending and controlled digital lending. But the two are substantively the same, and both serve copyright’s purposes. Traditionally, libraries own print books and can lend each copy to one person at a time, enabling many people to read the same book in succession. Through interlibrary loans, libraries also share books with other libraries’ patrons. Everyone agrees these practices are not copyright infringement.

Controlled digital lending applies the same principles, while creating new means to support education, research, and cultural participation. Under this approach, a library that owns a print book can scan it and lend the digital copy instead of the physical one. Crucially, a library can loan at any one time only the number of print copies it owns, using technological safeguards to prevent copying, restrict access, and limit the length of loan periods.

Lending within these limits aligns digital lending with traditional library lending and fundamentally distinguishes it from simply scanning books and uploading them for anyone to read or redistribute at will. Controlled digital lending serves libraries’ mission of supporting research and education by preserving and enabling access to a digital record of books precisely as they exist in print. And it serves the public by enabling better and more efficient access to library books, e.g., for rural residents with distant libraries, for elderly people and others with mobility or transportation limitations, and for people with disabilities that make holding or reading print books difficult. At the same time, because controlled digital lending is limited by the same principles inherent in traditional lending, its impact on authors and publishers is no different from what they have experienced for as long as libraries have existed.

The filing makes the case that the Internet Archives use of controlled digital lending for eBooks is protected by fair use, leaning heavily on the idea that there is no evidence of harm to the copyright holders:

First, the purpose and character of the use favor fair use because IA’s controlled digital lending is noncommercial, transformative, and justified by copyright’s purposes. IA is a nonprofit charity that offers digital library services for free. Controlled digital lending is transformative because it expands the utility of books by allowing libraries to lend copies they own more efficiently and borrowers to use books in new ways. There is no dispute that libraries can lend the print copy of a book by mail to one person at a time. Controlled digital lending enables libraries to do the same thing via the Internet—still one person at a time. And even if this use were not transformative, it would still be favored under the first factor because it furthers copyright’s ultimate purpose of promoting public access to knowledge—a purpose libraries have served for centuries.

Second, the nature of the copyrighted works is neutral because the works are a mix of fiction and non-fiction and all are published.

Third, the amount of work copied is also neutral because copying the entire book is necessary: borrowing a book from a library requires access to all of it.

Fourth, IA’s lending does not harm Publishers’ markets. Controlled digital lending is not a substitute for Publishers’ ebook licenses because it offers a fundamentally different service. It enables libraries to efficiently lend books they own, while ebook licenses allow libraries to provide readers temporary access through commercial aggregators to whatever selection of books Publishers choose to make available, whether the library owns a copy or not. Two experts analyzed the available data and concluded that IA’s lending does not harm Publishers’ sales or ebook licensing. Publishers’ expert offered no contrary empirical evidence.

Weighing the fair use factors in light of copyright’s purposes, the use here is fair. In concluding otherwise, the district court misunderstood controlled digital lending, conflating it with posting an ebook online for anyone to access at any time. The court failed to grasp the key feature of controlled digital lending: the digital copy is available only to the one person entitled to borrow it at a time, just like lending a print book. This error tainted the district court’s analysis of all the factors, particularly the first and fourth. The court compounded that error by failing to weigh the factors in light of the purposes of copyright.

Not surprisingly, I agree with the Internet Archives’ arguments here, but these kinds of cases are always a challenge. Judges have this weird view of copyright law, that they sometimes ignore the actual law, the purpose of the law, and the constitutional underpinnings of the law, and insist that the purpose of copyright law is to award the copyright holders as much money and control as possible.

That’s not how copyright is supposed to work, but judges sometimes seem to forget that. Hopefully, the 2nd Circuit does not. The 2nd Circuit, historically, has been pretty good on fair use issues, so hopefully that holds in this case as well.

The full brief is (not surprisingly) quite well done and detailed and worth reading.

And now we’ll get to see whether or not Penguin Random House really supports “the free flow of ideas” or not…

Source: Internet Archive Files Opening Brief In Its Appeal Of Book Publishers’ Win | Techdirt

People discussing Assisted Dying (Euthanasia) in the UK – apparently it’s still illegal there

Posted on by

Dame Esther Rantzen says a free vote on assisted dying would be top of the agenda if she were PM for a day.

“I think it’s important that the law catches up with what the country wants,” the veteran broadcaster told Radio 4’s Today podcast.

Earlier this year, the 83-year-old announced she had been diagnosed with stage four lung cancer.

Dame Esther told the BBC she is currently undergoing a “miracle” treatment to combat the disease.

However, if her next scan shows the medication is not working “I might buzz off to Zurich”, where assisted dying is legal and she has joined the Dignitas clinic, she said.

She said this decision could be driven in part by her wish that her family’s “last memories of me” are not “painful because if you watch someone you love having a bad death, that memory obliterates all the happy times”.

Source: Dame Esther Rantzen: ‘If I were PM, we would vote on assisted dying’ – BBC News

What civilised country doesn’t allow euthanasia? It’s like a 1970s country where being gay is still illegal. Climb up out of your Brexit inflicted stone age, Britain!

Research team discovers how to sabotage antibiotic-resistant ‘superbugs’

Posted on by

The typical strategy when treating microbial infections is to blast the pathogen with an , which works by getting inside the harmful cell and killing it. This is not as easy as it sounds, because any new antibiotic needs to be both water soluble, so that it can travel easily through the bloodstream, and oily, in order to cross the pathogenic cell’s first line of defense, the cellular membrane. Water and oil, of course, don’t mix, and it’s difficult to design a drug that has enough of both characteristics to be effective.

The difficulty doesn’t stop there, either, because pathogenic cells have developed something called an “efflux pump,” that can recognize antibiotics and then safely excrete them from the cell, where they can’t do any harm. If the antibiotic can’t overcome the efflux pump and kill the cell, then the pathogen “remembers” what that specific antibiotic looks like and develops additional efflux pumps to efficiently handle it—in effect, becoming resistant to that particular antibiotic.

One path forward is to find a new antibiotic, or combinations of them, and try to stay one step ahead of the superbugs.

“Or, we can shift our strategy,” says Alejandro Heuck, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at UMass Amherst and the paper’s senior author.

[…]

Like the pathogenic cell, host cells also have thick, difficult-to-penetrate cell walls. In order to breach them, pathogens have developed a syringe-like machine that first secretes two proteins, known as PopD and PopB. Neither PopD nor PopB individually can breach the cell wall, but the two proteins together can create a “translocon”—the cellular equivalent of a tunnel through the cell membrane. Once the tunnel is established, the pathogenic cell can inject other proteins that do the work of infecting the host.

This entire process is called the Type 3 secretion system—and none of it works without both PopB and PopD. “If we don’t try to kill the pathogen,” says Heuck, “then there’s no chance for it to develop resistance. We’re just sabotaging its machine. The pathogen is still alive; it’s just ineffective, and the host has time to use its natural defenses to get rid of the pathogen.”

[..]

Heuck and his colleagues realized that an enzyme class called the luciferases—similar to the ones that cause lightning bugs to glow at night—could be used as a tracer. They split the enzyme into two halves. One half went into the PopD/PopB proteins, and the other half was engineered into a host cell.

These engineered proteins and hosts can be flooded with different chemical compounds. If the host cell suddenly lights up, that means that PopD/PopB successfully breached the cellular wall, reuniting the two halves of the luciferase, causing them to glow. But if the cells stay dark? “Then we know which molecules break the translocon,” says Heuck.

Heuck is quick to point out that his team’s research has not only obvious applications in the world of pharmaceuticals and public health, but that it also advances our understanding of exactly how microbes infect healthy cells. “We wanted to study how worked,” he says, “and then suddenly we discovered that our findings can help solve a public-health problem.”

This research is published in the journal ACS Infectious Diseases.

More information: Hanling Guo et al, Cell-Based Assay to Determine Type 3 Secretion System Translocon Assembly in Pseudomonas aeruginosa Using Split Luciferase, ACS Infectious Diseases (2023). DOI: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.3c00482

Source: Research team discovers how to sabotage antibiotic-resistant ‘superbugs’

AI trained on millions of life stories can predict risk of early death

Posted on by

An artificial intelligence trained on personal data covering the entire population of Denmark can predict people’s chances of dying more accurately than any existing model, even those used in the insurance industry. The researchers behind the technology say it could also have a positive impact in early prediction of social and health problems – but must be kept out of the hands of big business.

Sune Lehmann Jørgensen at the Technical University of Denmark and his colleagues used a rich dataset from Denmark that covers education, visits to doctors and hospitals, any resulting diagnoses, income and occupation for 6 million people from 2008 to 2020.

They converted this dataset into words that could be used to train a large language model, the same technology that powers AI apps such as ChatGPT. These models work by looking at a series of words and determining which word is statistically most likely to come next, based on vast amounts of examples. In a similar way, the researchers’ Life2vec model can look at a series of life events that form a person’s history and determine what is most likely to happen next.

In experiments, Life2vec was trained on all but the last four years of the data, which was held back for testing. The researchers took data on a group of people aged 35 to 65, half of whom died between 2016 and 2020, and asked Life2vec to predict which who lived and who died. It was 11 per cent more accurate than any existing AI model or the actuarial life tables used to price life insurance policies in the finance industry.

The model was also able to predict the results of a personality test in a subset of the population more accurately than AI models trained specifically to do the job.

Jørgensen believes that the model has consumed enough data that it is likely to be able to shed light on a wide range of health and social topics. This means it could be used to predict health issues and catch them early, or by governments to reduce inequality. But he stresses that it could also be used by companies in a harmful way.

“Clearly, our model should not be used by an insurance company, because the whole idea of insurance is that, by sharing the lack of knowledge of who is going to be the unlucky person struck by some incident, or death, or losing your backpack, we can kind of share this this burden,” says Jørgensen.

But technologies like this are already out there, he says. “They’re likely being used on us already by big tech companies that have tonnes of data about us, and they’re using it to make predictions about us.”

Source: AI trained on millions of life stories can predict risk of early death | New Scientist

Internet Architecture Board hits out at US, EU, UK client-side scanning (spying on everything on your phone and pc all the time) plans – to save (heard it before?) kids

Posted on by

[…]

Apple brought widespread attention to this so-called client-side scanning in August 2021 when it announced plans to examine photos on iPhones and iPads before they were synced to iCloud, as a safeguard against the distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Under that plan, if someone’s files were deemed to be CSAM, the user could lose their iCloud account and be reported to the cops.

As the name suggests, client-side scanning involves software on a phone or some other device automatically analyzing files for unlawful photos and other content, and then performing some action – such as flagging or removing the documents or reporting them to the authorities. At issue, primarily, is the loss of privacy from the identification process – how will that work with strong encryption, and do the files need to be shared with an outside service? Then there’s the reporting process – how accurate is it, is there any human intervention, and what happens if your gadget wrongly fingers you to the cops?

The iGiant’s plan was pilloried by advocacy organizations and by customers on technical and privacy grounds. Ultimately Apple abandoned the effort and went ahead with offering iCloud encryption – a level of privacy that prompted political pushback at other tech titans.

Proposals for client-side scanning … mandate unrestricted access to private content and therefore undermine end-to-end encryption and bear the risk to become a widespread facilitator of surveillance and censorship

Client-side scanning has since reappeared, this time on legislative agendas. And the IAB – a research committee for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), a crucial group of techies who help keep the ‘net glued together –thinks that’s a bad idea.

“A secure, resilient, and interoperable internet benefits the public interest and supports human rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression,” the IAB declared in a statement just before the weekend.

[…]

Specifically, the IAB cites Europe’s planned “Regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse” (2022/0155(COD)), the UK Online Safety Act of 2023, and the US Earn-It Act, all of which contemplate regulatory regimes that have the potential to require the decryption of encrypted content in support of mandated surveillance.

The administrative body acknowledges the social harm done through the distribution of illegal content on the internet and the need to protect internet users. But it contends indiscriminate surveillance is not the answer.

The UK has already passed its Online Safety Act legislation, which authorizes telecom watchdog Ofcom to demand decryption of communications on grounds of child safety – though government officials have admitted that’s not technically feasible at the moment.

Europe, under fire for concealing those who have consulted on client-side scanning, and the US appears to be heading down a similar path.

For the IAB and IETF, client-side scanning initiatives echo other problematic technology proposals – including wiretaps, cryptographic backdoors, and pervasive monitoring.

“The IAB opposes technologies that foster surveillance as they weaken the user’s expectations of private communication which decreases the trust in the internet as the core communication platform of today’s society,” the organization wrote. “Mandatory client-side scanning creates a tool that is straightforward to abuse as a widespread facilitator of surveillance and censorship.”

[…]

Source: Internet Architecture Board hits out at client-side scanning • The Register

As soon as they take away privacy to save kids, you know they will expand the remit as governments have always done. The fact is that mass surveillance is not particularly effective, even with AI, except in making people feel watched and thus altering their behaviour. This feeling of always being spied upon is much much worse for whole generations of children than the tiny amount of sexual predators that may actually be caught.