Judge

Anthropic trained his AI with millions of books with copyright. To a judge that has seemed correct (with a great asterisk)

by

Anthropic has just achieved a very important legal victory in that legal battle that the world of AI maintains with copyright and copyright for years. The sentence, favorable to Anthropic, can sit a great precedent for the rest of the cases in which AI companies have been sued for training their models with works with copyright. But be careful, because it has not been a total victory. ANTOPIC WIN. In the demand of three authors against Anthropic, the company was accused of downloading millions of books with copyright, in addition to buying some of them to scan and digitize them. The objective: train their AI models. Judge William Alsup has made clear In his sentence that “the use for training was a fair use.” Companies that develop AI models have always shielded in that concept of just use to argue how their models with all kinds of works, including those protected by copyright. Fair use. This legal criterion maintains that limited use of protected material is allowed without needing permission from the owner of those rights. In the laws of Copyright, one of the ways that judges have to determine if that type of activity is a fair use is to examine whether that use was “transformer.” Or what is the same, if something new has been created from these works. For Alsup “the technology in question is one of the most transformatives that many of us will see in our lives.” A victory with a great asterisk. Although the judge indicated that this training process was a fair use, he also determined that the authors could lead Anthropic to trial for hacking their works. The company argued that this was justified because it was “at least reasonably necessary to train LLMS.” For Alsup the issue is precisely that although they ended up buying some of them, he built a huge library for which he did not pay: “Anthropic downloaded more than seven million pirate copies of books, did not pay anything and retained these pirate copies in his library even after deciding that he would not use them to train their AI (at all or never again). The authors argue that Anthropic should have paid for these pirate copies of the library. This sentence coincides with it.” Thomson-Reuters’ precedent. A few months ago Thomson Reuters won a 2020 demand Against a so -called Ross Intelligence Startup. According to them, the company had reproduced material from its legal research division, called Westlaw. The judge rejected the arguments of the defense and declared that the argument for fair use could not be applied in that case. The sentence against Anthropic is right in the opposite direction and blesses that type of use … while companies buy the works with which they train their models. The company of AI, by the way, had already achieved a small legal victory In a previous case against Universal Music. Anthropic downloaded piecework books. In the trial it was revealed how the co -founder of Anthropic, Ben Mann, downloaded in winter 2021 data sets such as The so -called Books3 or libgen (Library Genesis) that they are nothing more than gigantic book compilations, many of which are protected by copyright. Goal is in the same. All companies that develop AI models have been trained with all types of data, including works protected by copyright, and they all face a similar situation. Goal, for example, downloaded 81.7 TB of books with copyright via Bittorrent to train their AI models. That makes the company of Mark Zuckerberg can end up suffering a destination similar to that of Anthropic, which has before him a new very dangerous judicial process for his finances. A potential fine of billions of dollars. As indicated in Wired, the minimum fine for this type of copyright rape is $ 750 per book. Alsup indicated that the illegally unloaded library of Anthropic consists of at least seven million books, and that means that the company faces a potentially huge fine. At the moment there is no date for that new trial. The endless battle of AI and copyright. This is the last episode of a soap opera that we will undoubtedly see many more chapters. Companies like Google, OpenAI either Perplexity They have been equally voracious when training their models and have devastated public (and not so public) data on the Internet. Copyright’s rape demands are accumulating, and cases such as Anthropic may sit a predictive disturbing for all of them if they did not buy the books they used to train their models. Image | Emil Widlund In Xataka | 5,000 “tokens” of my blog are being used to train an AI. I have not given my permission

Tesla wants to keep certain accidents of accidents with her cars. A judge will decide if they should be made public

by

The Autopilot and the Total Autonomous Driving Capacity (FSD) have been available in the Tesla sold in the United States for years. Its existence, its commercial deployment and even its general operation are well known. What remains a mystery are some details of the accidents occurred With those activated systems. Tesla does not want this information to come to light, and now he has resorted to court to keep it locked. The origin of the conflict is in a lawsuit filed by The Washington Post against NHTSA, the Federal Road Safety Agency of the United States. The newspaper requests access to the full spreadsheet that compiles the reports of incidents occurred while the Tesla driving assistance systems were activated. According to the medium, the NHTSA publishes some data, but retains “critical details” such as environmental conditions, the location of the claims or the concrete versions of the software that were in use. For the plaintiffs, it is information of public interest that can shed light on the true performance of these technologies. A defense based on commercial secret As Reuters collects, Tesla has responded firmly. This week, he presented a writing before the Federal Court of the Columbia district to oppose the publication of this data. Its central argument is that certain fields of reports contain sensitive information. Specifically, the hardware or software version, the indication of whether the car circulated inside its Designed Operational Domain (ODD) and the detailed narrative of the accident. According to the company, revealing these elements would allow its competitors to evaluate the effectiveness of each version of the system, track the pace of improvement and associate errors with specific versions. It is, says Tesla, “a technological road map” that could cause severe competitive damage. The NHTSSA, meanwhile, has partially backed that position. In a separate writingthe agency coincides with Tesla that these three fields are protected by the Law of Freedom of Information (FOIA). Both argue that it is not only privacy, but of commercial confidentiality, a category that can legally justify that documents are not delivered to the public. The newspaper’s lawyers, on the other hand, have alleged that this information is already partially accessible to the drivers themselves and that their compilation should not be armored by the business secret. Now it is the Federal Court who must decide whether that information comes to light or remains hidden. But the debate is not purely legal; It occurs in full scrutiny of driving assistance systems. As NPR points outNHTSSA investigates FSD’s yield in 2.4 million vehicles After several accidentsincluding mortal in 2023. It also maintains other inquiries on collisions in low visibility conditions and on the function Actually Smart Summon. Although not all collisions are known publicly, the confidential spreadsheet that the Washington Post claims contains the incidents that Tesla regularly refers to the agency, but seeks to delve into the information that is made known. Autopilot, improved autopilot and total autonomous driving capacity are the three levels at which Tesla organizes its driving assistance systems. The first, Autopilot, comes standard in new vehicles sold in the United States and includes functions such as adaptive cruise control and autogyro, which keeps the car inside the lane. From there, the user can pay to access a more advanced package, the improved autopilot, or directly to the total autonomous driving capacity (Full Self-Driving or FSD), the most complete set offered by the brand. In practice, none of these systems converts the car into an autonomous vehicle. Despite his name, Full Self-Driving requires the driver to be attentive, with his hands on the steering wheel and willing to take control at any time. Tesla makes it clear: These are systems designed to attend, Not to replace the driver. That does not prevent functions such as automatic lane changes, assisted parking or the ability to stop before traffic lights and stop signals (in beta) are already available in many cars. They are important advances, but under mandatory human supervision. Images | Tesla (1, 2, 3) In Xataka | It seeks to hunt influencers. Reason: byd pays up to 600,000 euros for unmasking defamatory campaigns

A man stayed a 20 -euro bizum sent by mistake. The judge has fined her and has come out ten times more expensive

by

With 28 million active users, Bizum is the most used system in Spain for payments among users. We send and receive a lot of money through Bizum and make an mistake when typeing the number we want to send money is something that can happen with relative ease. If we are lucky, they may return it to us, but what happens if who is on the other side decides to stay the money? Now we know. Staying a bizum sent by mistake is very expensive. As we said, making a mistake to type the number to which we want to send a bizum can be quite easy and it is just what happened to a neighbor of Benavente, as they say in Zamora’s opinion. The person who received the 20 euros did not return the amount and the woman decided to denounce him to the authorities. The Provincial Court of Zamora has proved him right and has condemned the receiver of the transfer to return the 20 euros, in addition to paying the judicial coasts and a fine of 180 euros for a slight crime of improper appropriation. More than ten times the original amount. The Civil Code says. The denounced has resorted to the sentence alleging lack of evidence and presumption of innocence, but the judge has confirmed it and considers that the woman had not consented to the transfer. This would apply not only to Bizum, but to transfers and any other payment received by error. He Article 1895 of the Civil Code It is clear, it must always be returned: When something that was not entitled to collect is received, and that by mistake it has been improperly delivered, the obligation to restore it arises. There is jurisprudence. There have been more cases that have reached the courts for transfers made by error, such as this one of an Alicante businessman who faces Three years in jail for not returning a payment of 341,000 That was done by mistake. EITHER This 2015 sentence who condemned a woman for staying with 25,900 euros of the pension plan of her ex -husband, the result of an error of the bank when rescuing the money. Bizum in figures. Bizum It has become the standard of immediate payments in Spain. Arrived in 2016 as part of an initiative among various banking entities, although it was not until 2018 when It extended and began to grow. It currently has 28 million users and it is expected to reach 30 throughout the year. In 2024 an average of 3 million operations were made per day. The record was the past Black Friday (November 29, 2024), with 4.8 million operations. Or what is the same: 55 bizums per second. In total, in 2024 1,093 million operations were made worth 44,206 million euros. We do not know the number of erroneous operations when sending money, but with these numbers it is logical that they are increasing. Bizum grows, legal doubts too. In parallel to this growth, unknowns have also been increasing from the legal and legal point of view. Many users wonder What income or payments should be declared to the Treasury. We know that it is not necessary to declare payments between friends and family, although the freelancers who use it to collect, the income that generate economic profitability as rentals or if the total amount adds more than 10,000 euros per year should do. Doubts have also emerged about whether something that has eliminated the Threshold of 3,000 euros in the control of transfers by the Treasury. In this case, if high amounts are received through Bizum, the Treasury may investigate it, just as they would do if it were a transfer or a metallic income. Little by little, light is shed and it is clear that, at the legal level, Bizum is one more method to move money and apply the same rules as any type of income In Xataka | Timo of the false bizum by mistake: how it works and how to avoid this scam

Ryanair has been carefree for time for delays on his flights. And in Zaragoza a judge has decided to make him pay

by

There are sentences that seem anecdotal but, basically, have their importance. When a judge opts in favor of one side or another it is important because he is not only offering his vision of a fact, he is raiding the way for, in the future, his sentence is taken as a sentence for a similar case. When these decisions are made by a superior court, it is called jurisprudence And it serves, as we said, to apply the same criteria in the future. In spite of everything, the conclusions of the lower organs are also important because they can serve as the basis for defense or accusation later. That is why it is important to attend to the results that Ryanair is receiving in the courts. In recent months, with the Fund government finemost of the news that arrives are related to the collection by the cabin suitcase. Sentences that are important because, even, Justice itself does not seem to agree. Despite this, the company continues to receive complaints for another series of reasons. A few days ago the case of an old man who was prevented from returning to Spain was viracied because Ryanair workers assured that the document with which he was flying was not valid. They defended that the permanent ID, that in Spain it is given to people with more than 70 yearsit could not be used as a legal document to fly. Now we have known that Ryanair has received a new varapalo. You will have to compensate a passenger for the delay of a flight. Not because of the fact of being late, specifically because the judge who has led the case is clear that the company did not put all possible means to ensure that the flight left in time. Lighting, which is gerund The news brings it eldiario.eswho echoes the judgment of the Court of First Instance number 10 of Zaragoza. Its headline has confirmed that Ryanair will have to disburse 250 euros to compensate for a passenger who saw his flight delayed in three hours. The important thing here is that the judge points out that nothing extraordinary did not happen so that The flight will be delayedpulling the main defense argument of the company. This allegation is what the airlines usually use to try to deny compensation due to a flight delay, such as It can be read on the company’s own website. According to the claims platform. (who has led the defense of the passenger)many times they are told passengers that “they have no right to compensation because the incidence has occurred due to a cause of force majeure that was unpredictable for the airline, but that in many occasions the end of this argument is to avoid economically compensating passengers because in reality such extraordinary circumstance has not been produced.” In this case, the defense of the passenger claimed that the company could have had an alternative plan if they had taken the appropriate measures. Something that the judge coincides who in her letter has stressed that the company was aware that the flight was going to be delayed because in its previous route the plane was already traveling late. However, he did not launch any alternative plan and limited himself, exclusively, to delaying the next flight. For the judge, aware that the flight between Porto and London already circulated with a “serious delay”, the company should have contemplated how it could prevent the flight between London and Zaragoza from being delayed. Instead of letting the dominoes fell, in Ryanair, they should have sought a way to Avoid this last delay But, instead, they simply maintained their initial plan and waited for it to be replicated on the flight of the affected passenger. In her letter, the judge also emphasizes that “the fact that a plane is assigned to several flights in a short period of time only obeys a business decision, cost reduction, etc. but that gives rise to assume a clear risk that an incidence in one of them affects all the remaining flights assigned to the aircraft.” That should not be a reason, however, to correct the problem. The judgment of this Spanish court follows the line of the decreed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (TJUE) That last year he sentenced that airlines have to compensate passengers whenever they fail to demonstrate that they took all reasonable measures to avoid a delay, even in the face of “extraordinary circumstances” that has been based on what their defenses have been based so far. Photo | Ryanair In Xataka | Ryanair has found a new formula to win more for a ticket: force you to 100% digital shipment

Brazil has taken 23 years to discover that its English judge Albert Lancelot Canterbury is called José and never left the country

by

Exactly 10 years ago, a decade, the media made the case of an Australian of Vietnamese origin famous. Its history today is part of that set of surreal stories that were born (and died) on the network. Apparently, the guy, called nothing less What Phuc Dat Bichhe was censored by Facebook due to his name (and his hilarious similarity with “Fuck That Bitch”). Unfortunately, the story in the end was too good to be true. In Brazil it occurred to the resemblance, but for 23 years nobody doubted Judge Edward Albert Lancelot Dodd Canterbury Caterham Wickfield. The “aristocrat” of the countryside. The short version: for more than two decades, the judicial system of the state of São Paulo housed a judge who did not exist. La Tarce: José Eduardo Franco Dos Reis, a Brazilian citizen, managed to pass public exams, graduate in Law at the University of São Paulo and exercise as a magistrate under a completely false identity: Edward Albert Lancelot Dodd Canterbury Caterham Wickfield, a name as extravagant as Anglophile. The farce began in the 80s, when two reis, determined to reinvent itself, falsified his birth certificate to present himself as a British aristocrat born in Brazil but raised in the United Kingdom. In 1995, already officially converted to a judge, the character consolidated with Press Interviews in which he narrated a fictitious childhood between English castles and noble lineages. An institutionalized lie. The really fascinating thing about this story is the time that has gone unnoticed by the authorities. The truth came to light in 2024when two Reis (even using Wickfield’s name) went to a government office to renew its identity document. Although all his legal roles were in the name of his alter ego British, the number of birth registration coincided with that of a Brazilian citizen. The crossing of fingerprints confirmed the suspicion: Judge Edward Albert Lancelot Dodd Canterbury Caterham Wickfield never existed. It was, in reality, a carefully built and sustained character for more than 20 years by “José”, a man who never left the country and who managed to deceive colleagues, institutions and control organisms without anyone questioning his story … despite the obvious theatricality of his name. An unlikely explanation. After discovering fraud, two Reis was summoned to declare. Then, the man appeared under his real name for the first time in decades, although he offered an even more delusional defense: he said that Wickfield was His twin brotheradopted in childhood by a couple of British aristocrats. Nor did he provide evidence or explain the origin of the names, although Media as Folha de S. Paulo They have pointed out the clear and obvious literary inspiration: from Sir Lancelot of The round table Even Mr. Wickfield from David Copperfieldby Charles Dickens. The Prosecutor’s Office formally accused him of ideological falsehood and use of false documents, but so far it has not been able to be located, so it has not been formally notified. A judicial fortune. During his career, “José” accumulated prestige, power and a juicy pension of more than $ 28,000 per monththe same ones that continued to charge even after his retirement in 2018. However, after the revelation of fraud, the Court of Justice of São Paulo has ordered the immediate suspension of his payments, an amount that only in February It would exceed 166,000 reais. No doubt, the case has left the stunned Brazilian public opinionnot only because of the magnitude of the deception, but by the dimension of the structural failure of the institutions that allowed a man to live under a literary identity, absurd and completely invented within one of the most monitored powers of the State. To the small screen. If you want also, the scandal is not only an anecdote of imposture, but a living metaphor of how the appearance, Language and authority can build parallel realities in systems that do not always require rigorous evidence to validate their pillars. The Wickfield-Dos Reis case not only ridicule the judicial system Brazilian, but reveals bureaucratic fragility against the imposted charism and a well -spun narrative (apparently). Plus: that a judge could be inspired by British literature to create their identity and exercise for decades without being discovered, it is both a structural failure and An institutional tragicomedy worthy of a Dickens novel … or a script that I could surely prepare the Netflix very. Image | ITOLDYA, Devianart In Xataka | Indeed, if you doubted that someone was called Phuc Dat Bich, you were right In Xataka | AGLOE: The story of how a city that did not exist until Google eliminated it was introduced into the maps

Musk is trying to block Openai’s transition to “for-profit.” A judge just put it very difficult

by

Sam Altman wants to make Openai a company with profit (“for-profit”), but the process was notably complicated when Musk offered to buy it for 97.4 billion dollars. The tycoon did not stop there and He also tried to sue A Openai to try to block that transition to For-Profit, but just lost that legal battle. What happened. A federal judge in California has blocked Musk’s legal effort to stop Openai’s transformation to an entity of profit. As indicated In BloombergJudge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers determined that the lawsuit “have not satisfied the probative charge” that would have needed for that demand to prosper. A case that was entangled. In March 2024 Musk He sued Openai for violating their contracts and fiduciary duties. The case He retired of the State Court and was activated in the Federal Court, and that was when Musk expanded the demand indicating that Microsoft and Openai had violated antitrust laws. Openai defended himself from these allegations publishing internal messages of the billionaire, and now the federal judge has made it clear that the evidence and arguments presented by Musk are not enough to avoid that transition sought by Altman. But not everything is lost. The demand contained other Musk requests with respect to OpenAI, although it is not detailed which. Even so, the judge has indicated that these other components of the lawsuit may remain active in the legal process. Sam Altman has it easier now. The Openai Directorate Council declared a few weeks ago that “the hundreds of billions of dollars that large companies are now investing in the development of AI show what is really needed so that Openai continues to pursue the mission.” With the Form-Profit structure, the company can avoid the limitations of investments in your company. Thus, Openai will be able to eliminate that benefit to investors, which can attract even more money for the company. Quick judgment. Rogers added in his sentence that Musk’s complaints are resolved as soon as possible “the public interest in play and potential damage if a transition contrary to the law occurs.” Thus, the judge indicated that he will hold an accelerated trial focusing on the main demand that the Openai conversion plan is illegal and “potentially the interrelated demands based on contracts”. The war between Musk and Altman continues. Openai’s lawyers stood out as Musk’s demand is basically a demand for the competition with the company. “Elon’s own emails,” they explained, “they show that they wanted to merge an openai with profit with Tesla. That would have been great for their personal benefit, but not for our mission or the interests of the US.” Image | Ted | Techcrunch In Xataka | Elon Musk’s continued criticism A OpenAi have a simple explanation: it went too soon

Judge he grants in demand for discrimination against DACA beneficiaries

by

A federal judge granted the final approval of a collective claim agreement between First Tech Credit Union and the beneficiaries of the deferred action for children in childhood (DACA) and other immigrants who were denied the total consideration for credit due to their immigration status. Obama introduced the DACA program in 2012, alleging the inaction of Congress on legislation aimed at offering a way to legal status to those brought to the country when they were children. There were legal battles, including two reviews of the Supreme Court. Despite this, over the years, this program has suffered different challenges and one of them were the policies of financial institutions that allegedly discriminate against DACA beneficiaries and other immigrants. Trump already tried to end Daca in his first term.Credit: Mark Schiefelbein | AP Therefore, the Maldef Organization (Mexico-American Educational Fund and Legal Defense) represented the beneficiaries of DACA and other immigrants who formed the group of the agreement reached with financial institutions after being demanded for denying services to the beneficiaries of DACA and other immigrants depending on its immigration status. As reported, Since 2017, Maldef has submitted 19 demands that challenge the policies of financial institutions that allegedly discriminate against DACA beneficiaries and other immigrants. “Regardless of biased rhetoric emanating from the new administration, the law protects immigrants from discrimination,” said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general advisor of Maldef. “When a credit cooperative like First Tech acknowledges that immigrants must access critical financial products, our economy and society improve.” As part of the agreement, First Tech created a compensation fund of $ 81,500 to compensate for the kind of immigrants affected by the questioned practice. The agreement, which received preliminary approval in October, also includes a change in the First Tech policy. “Daca’s beneficiaries throughout the country play an important role in the progress of our nation,” said Eduardo Casas, a maldef lawyer. Maldef filed the lawsuit in 2023 on behalf of Ismael Rodríguez Pérez, Daca beneficiary. Pérez was initially approved a credit line with mortgage guarantee (Heloc), but then he learned that the loan was denied because he was not permanent resident. The lawyers argued that the First Tech policy violated section 1981 of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1866 and the UNRUH Civil Rights Law of California, which prohibit discrimination in certain matters of consumption. The lawsuit was filed at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. “The final approval of the agreement has brought me a sense of justice,” said Pérez. “Knowing that those who were also affected are receiving part of this agreement give me the hope that they recognize that someone is defending them. I am incredibly grateful for all the support I received from Maldef to do this possible. He is inspiring and empowering to know that there are still people dedicated to helping our cause as immigrants. I will continue to fight against injustice and, with people like them by my side, I feel strength to continue fighting. ” Continue reading:• What documents should a foreigner carry in the United States before ICE raids?• Border tsar attack against Pope Francis for criticizing immigrants deportations• The White House spreads the first images of immigrants by addressing a plane to be deported (Tagstotranslate) Daca

Judge hears lawsuit over Trump’s order to cancel birthright citizenship

by

A federal judge in Seattle will hear first arguments Thursday in a lawsuit filed by several states seeking to block President Donald Trump’s executive order ending the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship regardless of parents’ immigration status. Federal Judge John Coughenour scheduled the session to consider the request from Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington. The case is one of five lawsuits brought by 22 states and several immigrant advocacy groups across the country. The lawsuits include personal testimony from prosecutors who are U.S. citizens by birthright, and names of pregnant women who fear their children will not become U.S. citizens. The order signed by Trump on the day of his inauguration is scheduled to go into effect on February 19. It could affect thousands of people born in the country, according to one of the lawsuits. In 2022, there were approximately 255,000 births of citizen children to mothers living in the country illegally and approximately 153,000 births to both parents in such a situation, according to the lawsuit filed by the four states in Seattle. The United States is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship, the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil,” applies. Most are in the American Continent, including Canada and Mexico. The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship to people born and naturalized in the country and states have interpreted the amendment that way for a century. Ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, the amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside.” Trump’s order affirms that children of non-Americans are not subject to US jurisdiction and directs federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for children who do not have at least one parent who is a citizen. A key case on the issue unfolded in 1898. The Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he faced denial of reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he was not a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act. But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that that case clearly applied to children born to parents who were both legal immigrants. They say it is less clear whether it applies to children born to parents who do not have a residence permit. Trump’s executive order prompted attorneys general to share their personal connections to birthright citizenship. For example, Connecticut state Attorney General William Tong, a birthright U.S. citizen and the nation’s first elected Chinese American attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal to him. “There is no legitimate legal debate on this issue. But the fact that Trump is completely wrong will not stop him from causing serious harm right now to American families like mine,” Tong said this week. One of the lawsuits includes the case of a pregnant woman, identified as “Carmen,” who is not a citizen, but has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could give her permanent residency status. “Depriving children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a serious injury,” the lawsuit says. “It denies them the full membership in American society to which they are entitled.”

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.