Daily Archives: December 20, 2023

The UK Government Should Not Let Copyright Stifle AI Innovation

Posted on by

As Walled Culture has often noted, the process of framing new copyright laws is tilted against the public in multiple ways. And on the rare occasions when a government makes some mild concession to anyone outside the copyright industry, the latter invariably rolls out its highly-effective lobbying machine to fight against such measures. It’s happening again in the world of AI. A post on the Knowledge Rights 21 site points to:

a U-turn by the British Government in February 2023, abandoning its prior commitment to introduce a broad copyright exception for text and data mining that would not have made an artificial distinction between non-commercial and commercial uses. Given that applied research so often bridges these two, treating them differently risks simply chilling innovative knowledge transfer and public institutions working with the private sector.

Unfortunately, and in the face of significant lobbying from the creative industries (something we see also in Washington, Tokyo and Brussels), the UK government moved away from clarifying language to support the development of AI in the UK.

In an attempt to undo some of the damage caused by the UK government’s retrograde move, a broad range of organizations, including Knowledge Rights 21, Creative Commons, and Wikimedia UK, have issued a public statement calling on the UK government to safeguard AI innovation as it draws up its new code of practice on copyright and AI. The statement points out that copyright is a serious threat to the development of AI in the UK, and that:

Whilst questions have arisen in the past which consider copyright implications in relation to new technologies, this is the first time that such debate risks entirely halting the development of a new technology.

The statement’s key point is as follows:

AI relies on analysing large amounts of data. Large-scale machine learning, in particular, must be trained on vast amounts of data in order to function correctly, safely and without bias. Safety is critical, as highlighted in the [recently agreed] Bletchley Declaration. In order to achieve the necessary scale, AI developers need to be able to use the data they have lawful access to, such as data that is made freely available to view on the open web or to which they already have access to by agreement.

Any restriction on the use of such data or disproportionate legal requirements will negatively impact on the development of AI, not only inhibiting the development of large-scale AI in the UK but exacerbating further pre-existing issues caused by unequal access to data.

The organizations behind the statement note that restrictions imposed by copyright would create barriers to entry and raise costs for new entrants. There would also be serious knock-on effects:

Text and data mining techniques are necessary to analyse large volumes of content, often using AI, to detect patterns and generate insights, without needing to manually read everything. Such analysis is regularly needed across all areas of our society and economy, from healthcare to marketing, climate research to finance.

The statement concludes by making a number of recommendations to the UK government in order to ensure that copyright does not stifle the development of AI in the UK. The key ones concern access to the data sets that are vital for training AI and carrying out text and data mining. The organizations ask that the UK’s Code of Practice:

Clarifies that access to broad and varied data sets that are publicly available online remain available for analysis, including text and data mining, without the need for licensing.

Recognises that even without an explicit commercial text and data mining exception, exceptions and limits on copyright law exist that would permit text and data mining for commercial purposes.

Those are pretty minimal demands, but we can be sure that the copyright industry will fight them tooth and nail. For the companies involved, keeping everything involving copyright under their tight control is far more important than nurturing an exciting new technology with potentially huge benefits for everyone.

Source: The UK Government Should Not Let Copyright Stifle AI Innovation | Techdirt

Volkswagen brings back physical buttons for all new cars

Posted on by

Future Volkswagen interiors will all draw inspiration from the ID 2all concept car and bring back physical buttons and controls.

The touchscreen-heavy approach taken for the Mk8 Golf and ID 3 has proven unpopular with customers, prompting a complete about-turn by the company in the way it approaches design.

VW interior designer Darius Watola said the ID2all concept “showed a new approach for all models” and was in response to “recent feedback from customers”.

The new interior has a row of physical (and backlit) buttons for the climate and a rotary controller on the centre tunnel to control the screen on the dashboard above, much like with BMW’s iDrive.

As well as a main central touchscreen for infotainment, there’s also a screen for driving information. Watola said such a display in the driver’s eyeline is crucial for safety.

He said that “customers had a different view in Europe” than in other global markets and wanted “more physical buttons”.

There’s also a revolution in terms of material use, as VW is looking to phase out hard plastics, glue, leather and chrome.

Almost every surface in the ID 2all is soft to the touch, mixing fabrics and Alcantara as part of a sustainability push. There’s limited use of some woods and metals, too.

Watola expressed a desire to see as many features and materials as possible from the concept to the production car in 2025 (which now seems unlikely to take the ID 2 name into showrooms).

However, the goal remains a sub-€25,000 (£22,000) price, which might limit some of the more premium-feeling materials in the cabin.

The concept’s screens can be selected in different themes, including retro graphics from the original Golf, and this feature is expected to make production.

Source: Volkswagen brings back physical buttons for all new cars | Autocar

Very glad that people are starting to realise that touchscreens are not only unsafe but also unhandy, slow and annoying

Internet Archive: Digital Lending is Fair Use, Not Copyright Infringement – a library is a library, whether it’s paper or digital

Posted on by

In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its ‘Open Library’ to a pirate site.

IA’s library is a non-profit operation that scans physical books, which can then be lent out to patrons in an ebook format. Patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house, with technical restrictions that prevent copying.

Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book for a limited period.

Mass Copyright Infringement or Fair Use?

Not all rightsholders are happy with IA’s scanning and lending activities. The publishers are not against libraries per se, nor do they object to ebook lending, but ‘authorized’ libraries typically obtain an official license or negotiate specific terms. The Internet Archive has no license.

The publishers see IA’s library as a rogue operation that engages in willful mass copyright infringement, directly damaging their bottom line. As such, they want it taken down permanently.

The Internet Archive wholeheartedly disagreed with the copyright infringement allegations; it offers a vital service to the public, the Archive said, as it built its legal defense on protected fair use.

After weighing the arguments from both sides, New York District Court Judge John Koeltl sided with the publishers. In March, the court granted their motion for summary judgment, which effectively means that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement.

The judgment and associated permanent injunction effectively barred the library from reproducing or distributing digital copies of the ‘covered books’ without permission from rightsholders. These restrictions were subject to an eventual appeal, which was announced shortly thereafter.

Internet Archive Files Appeal Brief

Late last week, IA filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, asking it to reverse the lower court’s judgment. The library argues that the court erred by rejecting its fair use defense.

Whether IA has a fair use defense depends on how the four relevant factors are weighed. According to the lower court, these favor the publishers but the library vehemently disagrees. On the contrary, it believes that its service promotes the creation and sharing of knowledge, which is a core purpose of copyright.

“This Court should reverse and hold that IA’s controlled digital lending is fair use. This practice, like traditional library lending, furthers copyright’s goal of promoting public availability of knowledge without harming authors or publishers,” the brief reads.

A fair use analysis has to weigh the interests of both sides. The lower court did so, but IA argues that it reached the wrong conclusions, failing to properly account for the “tremendous public benefits” controlled digital lending offers.

No Competition

One of the key fair use factors at stake is whether IA’s lending program affects (i.e., threatens) the traditional ebook lending market. IA uses expert witnesses to argue that there’s no financial harm and further argues that its service is substantially different from the ebook licensing market.

IA offers access to digital copies of books, which is similar to licensed libraries. However, the non-profit organization argues that its lending program is not a substitute as it offers a fundamentally different service.

“For example, libraries cannot use ebook licenses to build permanent collections. But they can use licensing to easily change the selection of ebooks they offer to adapt to changing interests,” IA writes.

The licensing models make these libraries more flexible. However, they have to rely on the books offered by commercial aggregators and can’t add these digital copies to their archives.

“Controlled digital lending, by contrast, allows libraries to lend only books from their own permanent collections. They can preserve and lend older editions, maintaining an accurate historical record of books as they were printed.

“They can also provide access that does not depend on what Publishers choose to make available. But libraries must own a copy of each book they lend, so they cannot easily swap one book for another when interest or trends change,” IA adds.

Stakes are High

The arguments highlighted here are just a fraction of the 74-page opening brief, which goes into much more detail and ultimately concludes that the district court’s judgment should be reversed.

In a recent blog post, IA founder Brewster Kahle writes that if the lower court’s verdict stands, books can’t be preserved for future generations in digital form, in the same way that paper versions have been archived for centuries.

“This lawsuit is about more than the Internet Archive; it is about the role of all libraries in our digital age. This lawsuit is an attack on a well-established practice used by hundreds of libraries to provide public access to their collections.

“The disastrous lower court decision in this case holds implications far beyond our organization, shaping the future of all libraries in the United States and unfortunately, around the world,” Kahle concludes.

—

A copy of the Internet Archive’s opening brief, filed at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, is available here (pdf)

Source: Internet Archive: Digital Lending is Fair Use, Not Copyright Infringement * TorrentFreak

Google to pay $700 million and make tiny app store changes to settle with 50 states

Posted on by

On December 11th, a jury decided that Google has an illegal monopoly with its Google Play app store, handing Epic Games a win. But Epic wasn’t the only one fighting an antitrust case. All 50 state attorneys general settled a similar lawsuit in September, and we’ve just now learned what Google agreed to give up as a result: $700 million and a handful of minor concessions in the way that Google runs its store in the United States.

The biggest change: Google will need to let developers steer consumers away from the Google Play Store for several years, if this settlement is approved.

You can read the full 68-page settlement for yourself at the bottom of this story, but here’s the TL;DR about what it includes:

  • $700,000,000 from Google in total (roughly 21 days of Google’s operating profit from the app store alone)
  • $629,000,000 of which will go to consumers who may have overpaid for apps or in-app purchases via Google Play after taxes, lawyers’ fees, and so on
  • $70,000,000 of which will go to states to be used as the state AGs see fit
  • $1,000,000 of which is for settlement administration
  • For 7 years, Google will “continue to technically enable Android to allow the installation of third-party apps on Mobile Devices through means other than Google Play”
  • For 5 years, Google will let developers offer an alternative in-app billing system next to Google Play (aka “User Choice Billing”)
  • For 5 years, Google won’t make developers offer their best prices to customers who pick Google Play and Google Play Billing
  • For 4 years, Google won’t make developers ship titles on Google Play at the same time as other stores and with feature parity
  • For 5 years, Google won’t make companies exclusively put Google Play on a phone or its homescreen
  • For 4 years, Google won’t stop OEMs from granting installer rights to preloaded apps
  • For 5 years, Google won’t require its “consent” before an OEM preloads a third-party app store
  • For 4 years, Google will let third-party app stores update apps without requiring user approval
  • For 4 years, Google will let sideloaded app stores use its APIs and “feature splits” to help install apps
  • For 5 years, Google will turn its two sideloading “scare screens” into a single user prompt which will read the equivalent of this agreed-upon language: “Your phone currently isn’t configured to install apps from this source. Granting this source permission to install apps could place your phone and data at risk.”
  • For 5 years, Google will let User Choice Billing participating developers let their users know about better pricing elsewhere and “complete transactions using the developer’s existing web-based billing solution in an embedded webview within its app.”
  • For 6 years, Google will “continue to allow developers to use contact information obtained outside the app or in-app (with User consent) to communicate with Users out-of-app”
  • For 6 years, Google will let consumption only apps (e.g. Netflix, which doesn’t let you pay on device) tell users about better prices elsewhere, without linking to an outside website — example: “Available on our website for $9.99”
  • For 6 years, Google “shall not prohibit developers from disclosing to Users any service or other fees associated with the Google Play or Google Play’s billing system.”

Does that sound like a lot? If you add it all up, it does make for a slightly different Google app store landscape than we’ve experienced over the past decade and change. But not only does every one of these concessions have an expiration date, many of them are arguably not real concessions.

Google argued during the Epic v. Google trial that users were already perfectly able to install third-party apps on their devices through any number of means, and it claimed many of its agreements with developers, OEMs, and carriers did not require them to, for instance, exclusively put Google Play on a phone or its homescreen.

More importantly, several of the most significant sounding changes here are tied to Google’s User Choice Billing program — which is mostly a fake choice, the Epic v. Google trial proved.

We confirmed with Google spokesperson Dan Jackson this evening that User Choice Billing participants are given a discounted rate of just 4 percent off of Google’s fee when users choose their own payment system, and that it won’t change as a result of the settlement. Not only did Google internally find that developers would lose money when users choose the 4 percent rate, but Google also gives companies like Spotify a free ride while apparently charging everyone else.

Perhaps most importantly, Google is reserving the right not to let developers like Netflix link to their own websites to give their users a discounted rate. “Google is not required to allow developers to include links that take a User outside an app distributed through Google Play to make a purchase,” the settlement agreement reads. We are still waiting to find out whether Apple will allow links and/or buttons to alternative payment systems, based on the ruling in Epic v. Apple. But the Google / state AGs settlement suggests that regardless, Google will not be required to allow links.

[…]

Source: Google to pay $700 million and make tiny app store changes to settle with 50 states – The Verge

It’s still baffling that Google lost this case and Apple won it on almost exactly the same grounds, where in Google’s case you can actually sideload apps “legally” (if in an obtuse manner which makes you think you are doing something wrong) and in Apple’s you can’t.

Lamborghini Tests Active Camber and Toe Control for Better Handling

Posted on by

It’s not often that we get to experience a new and completely novel piece of automotive technology for the first time. But that’s what Lamborghini seems to have created with its Active Wheel Carrier, which we have now sampled in prototype form. The system itself is both clever and complex, but the basic purpose is simple: to give real-time control of camber and toe alignment settings while a car is moving.

According to Rouven Mohr, Lamborghini’s chief technical officer, this is one of the final frontiers of vehicle dynamics. Suspension geometry is usually based around a set of compromises, with the loads created by a car in motion inevitably negatively affecting at least some of these. And the alignment settings that are right for the track will cause premature tire wear on the street, which is why many high-performance cars have track-alignment settings and necessitate switching back and forth. Gaining active control in two different planes—toe being the angle of the rotating wheel relative to the direction of travel, and camber its side-on angle relative to the ground—means that many of these compromises can be eliminated. The results, based on our drive in a Lamborghini Huracán development mule at Porsche’s Nardò test track in Italy, are deeply impressive.

The idea itself is not new, and Mohr admits that work on it was being done at fellow VW sibling Audi when he previously worked there. But as well as the hardware required to move the wheel in two planes, the challenge is creating a control system capable of doing so quickly and accurately enough to allow the benefits to be exploited. This is an area in which Lamborghini is leading the way.

The system works exclusively on each of the Huracán prototype’s rear wheels. Active toe control is, in essence, a rear-steering system. We’ve had those before, of course—but this one can also move the wheels between toe-in, where the leading edges point very slightly toward each other, and toe-out, where they do the opposite. In very general terms, toe-out makes a car more reactive and keener to turn, while toe-in gives better high-speed stability.

Active camber control is more revolutionary. Under cornering loads, a car leans over and the suspension compresses, which alters the relationship between the tire tread and the road surface. On something as low and firmly suspended as a Lamborghini supercar, the effect is much slighter than it would be on a 1970s sedan, but it is still significant, as it creates uneven pressure distribution on the tire’s contact patch, which reduces grip. Many performance cars are set up with negative camber (the tire leaned in on its inside edge) to compensate for this, but doing so reduces straight-line traction and increases tire wear.

[…]

two rotating flanges within are what alter the relative angle between the two sides, one controlling camber and the other toe. These are gear-driven by 48-volt electric motors.

[…]

The Active Wheel Carrier can deliver up to 6.6 degrees of toe adjustment in either direction and between 2.5 degrees of positive and 5.5 degrees of negative camber. Both planes can be adjusted at the same time, and the electric motors can do this at up to 60 degrees a second. So even the most extreme change possible—from full toe-in to full toe-out—could be accomplished in under a quarter of a second, although most changes will be much smaller adjustments.

[…]

Starting with the system switched off, and the Evo’s rear suspension in its default position, reveals both understeer on cold tires when driven aggressively plus a rapid transition to oversteer when the rear grip is exceeded. With the Active Wheel Carrier switched on, the Huracán immediately feels more grippy and reactive, keener to change direction—much of which is due to the rear-steering effect of toe adjustment—but also much more stable when being pushed to the edge of adhesion.

[…]

On the handling track, our fastest lap with AWC on was 4.8 seconds faster than with the system off, and while that effect is reduced for more experienced drivers on more familiar tracks, it’s still significant. Even a Lambo pro driver is reportedly 2.8 seconds quicker at Nardò with AWC. That’s on par with the gain by switching from sport tires to street-legal semi-slicks.

The technology would also enable other changes: wider front tires relative to the rears, slightly softer springs to allow more roll (active camber being able to adjust to this), and the intriguing possibly of running different tire compounds front and rear to make maximum benefit from the improved grip. Motors powering the units would also likely be upgraded to work on 400 volts, supplied directly from the plug-in-hybrid battery pack.

While AWC is officially only an experiment at this stage, it seems overwhelmingly likely to play a part in Lamborghini’s future—most likely the Huracán replacement that will debut next year.

Source: Lamborghini Tests Active Camber and Toe Control for Better Handling

Magic: The Gathering Bans the Use of Generative AI in ‘Final’ Products – Wizards of the Coast cancelled themselves

Posted on by

[…] a D&D artist confirmed they had used generative AI programs to finish several pieces of art included in the sourcebook Glory of the Giants—saw Wizards of the Coast publicly ban the use of AI tools in the process of creating art for the venerable TTRPG. Now, the publisher is making that clearer for its other wildly successful game in Magic: The Gathering.

Update 12/19 11.20PM ET: This post has been updated to include clarification from Wizards of the Coast regarding the extent of guidelines for creatives working with Magic and D&D and the use of Generative A.I.

“For 30 years, Magic: The Gathering has been built on the innovation, ingenuity, and hard work of talented people who sculpt a beautiful, creative game. That isn’t changing,” a new statement shared by Wizards of the Coast on Daily MTG begins. “Our internal guidelines remain the same with regard to artificial intelligence tools: We require artists, writers, and creatives contributing to the Magic TCG to refrain from using AI generative tools to create final Magic products. We work with some of the most talented artists and creatives in the world, and we believe those people are what makes Magic great.”

[…]

The Magic statement also comes in the wake of major layoffs at Wizard’s parent company Hasbro. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Hasbro plans to lay off 1,100 staff over the next six months across its divisions in a series of cost-cutting measures, with many creatives across Wizard’s D&D and Magic teams confirming they were part of the layoffs. Just this week, the company faced backlash for opening a position for a Digital Artist at Wizards of the Coast in the wake of the job cuts, which totaled roughly a fifth of the Hasbro’s current workforce across all of its divisions.

The job description specifically highlights that the role includes having to “refine and modify illustrative artwork for print and digital media through retouching, color correction, adjusting ink density, re-sizing, cropping, generating clipping paths, and hand-brushing spot plate masks,” as well as “use… digital retouching wizardry to extend cropped characters and adjust visual elements due to legal and art direction requirements,” which critics suggested carried the implication that the role would involve iterating on and polishing art created through generative AI. Whether or not this will be the case considering Wizards’ now-publicized stance remains to be seen.

Source: Magic: The Gathering Formally Bans the Use of Generative AI in ‘Final’ Products

The Gawker company is very anti AI and keeps mentioning backlash. It’s quite funny that if you look at the supposed “backlash” – they are mostly about the lack of quality control around said art – in as much as people thought the points raised were valid at all (source: twitter page with original disclosure). It’s a kind of cancel culture cave-in, where a minority gets to play the role of judge, jury and executioner and the person being cancelled actually… listens the the canceller with no actual evidence of their crime being presented or weighed independently.