Federal judge delivers first major AI copyright ruling against startup - Related to delivers, judge, 7, cpu, burning

Burning Saga Continues, This Time it's an AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D CPU

A new case of catastrophic CPU failure has emerged involving AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D processor, marking the latest in a series of reported incidents within the last few days involving high-performance GPUs and CPUs. The failure occurred during routine use when a system equipped with the 9800X3D and an ASRock Nova X870E motherboard suddenly shut down, resulting in visible thermal damage to both components. The incident is particularly noteworthy as the system operated under stock settings, with only AMD EXPO memory optimization enabled. The affected user, who has two decades of PC building experience, reported that the system had been operational for approximately 20 days before the failure, with no temperature anomalies recorded through HWMonitor during its [website] hardware was running the ASRock BIOS version [website] This case differs significantly from the previous AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D failure, where user error during installation was identified as the primary cause, with the user force-installing the CPU in the socket. The timing of the failure—during a low-intensity workload of streaming video content—further complicates the investigation into root causes. While isolated cases of hardware failure are not uncommon in the PC component market, this case may be the first one caused entirely by the CPU/motherboard combination, not user error. The user also faces uncertainty regarding warranty coverage, as the CPU and motherboard were purchased separately from different retailers. We hope the warranty case goes well, and the user gets a replacement!

Microsoft has released the KB5051974 cumulative revision for versions 22H2 and 21H2, adding security fixes and patching a memory leak. However, as Bleep......

Serving tech enthusiasts for over 25 years.TechSpot means tech analysis and advice you can trust.

Death from above: A new study warns that the risk of......

Der erste DLC für den Landschafts-Simulator 25 ergänzt im Nexat-Pack insgesamt zwölf Maschinen inklusive dem Trägerfahrzeug. Mit dem ungewöhnlichen Tr......

Thomson Reuters lands copyright win against AI company. What’s next?

The first landmark win in an AI copyright case is here. A Delaware court has ruled that a tech startup used copyright-protected material to build a competing AI-based legal product, which is against the law, handing over a remarkable win to Thomson Reuters.

This is the first major victory for a plaintiff fighting against an AI organization over what constitutes “fair use” of material owned by another entity. The parent organization of the Reuters news agency has been tangled in a lengthy legal case against Ross Intelligence, an AI organization that lifted material from Thomson Reuters’s Westlaw platform.

The plaintiff argued in court that Ross Intelligence’s usage of material pulled from its database to train an AI-powered legal research tool was not fair use, and that it infringed on copyright-protected material.

In their ruling, [website] Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas rejected Ross’ asserts that its conduct was “innocent infringement,” granting a summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters. At the center of the case is the concept of fair use, which is broadly dependent on four factors:

(1) The purpose and character of using copyright material, including whether it is commercial or nonprofit.

(2) The nature of the copyrighted work that was used.

(3) How much of the work was used and how substantial a part it was relative to the copyrighted work’s whole.

(4) How does the usage affect the copyrighted work’s value or potential market position.

The district court’s decision was a 2-2 split between Ross Intelligence and Thomson Reuters, but Judge Bibas ruled that the fourth factor outweighs the rest. The latest court ruling could set the ball rolling for more decisive action in other cases where AI companies have been dragged to court for unfairly using copyright-protected content.

The dawn of a new era for AI training battles?

One of the biggest such cases involved The New York Times mounting a legal challenge against OpenAI and its backer Microsoft for using the news outlet’s content without proper authorization to train its AI products such as ChatGPT. Getty’s lawsuits against Stability AI are another example where the “scraping” of content without due licensing or compensation was challenged.

Amazon-backed Anthropic also found itself tangled in a copyright battle against the Universal Music Group. not long ago, we have seen a new trend where two supposedly warring sides strike a licensing deal to quell the copyright disputes. OpenAI has struck licensing deals with Axios, Hearst, and CondeNast, among others. Perplexity, stung by its own long list of copyright lawsuits, has inked similar partnerships with Fortune and Times, to name a few.

Meta, Google, and Microsoft have also signed similar deals with “content” partners. Even the Reuters news agency has entered into a licensing partnership with Meta. But striking licensing deals is merely a stop-gap solution.

Experts are still divided and seek further clarity on what constitutes copyright law in the age of AI. For example, if an AI model is regurgitating a paraphrased version of someone’s copyright-protected material, what degree of similarity between the two would trigger a copyright infringement lawsuit? We’ll find out soon.

Last October, Apple introduced its modernized range of MacBook Pro models ; featuring the M4 family of chips. Ultra-thin notebook enthusiasts wondered......

Nicht ganz anderthalb Jahre nach dem Release auf der PS5 gibt es jetzt Spider-Man 2 auf dem PC. Technisch Ende Januar katastrophal gestartet, wurde de......

Federal judge delivers first major AI copyright ruling against startup

Why it matters: A federal judge in Delaware has delivered a landmark ruling in the first major AI copyright case in the United States, siding with Thomson Reuters in its lawsuit against legal AI startup Ross Intelligence. The decision, issued this week by US Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over AI training and the use of copyrighted data.

The case, filed in 2020, accused Ross Intelligence of reproducing materials from Thomson Reuters' Westlaw legal research database to build a competing AI-powered legal platform. Judge Bibas rejected Ross Intelligence's fair use defense, a key argument used by AI companies in copyright disputes.

"None of Ross's possible defenses holds water. I reject them all," he wrote in his summary judgment. The ruling focused on non-generative AI, distinguishing it from generative AI systems like large language models.

The fair use doctrine, a crucial component of US copyright law, allows for the unauthorized use of copyrighted works under certain circumstances. In this case, Judge Bibas ruled that two of the four fair use factors favored Thomson Reuters: the purpose of Ross's use of Westlaw headnotes and its harm to the market for the originals.

"Ross took the headnotes to make it easier to develop a competing legal research tool," Bibas wrote. "So Ross's use is not transformative."

It must be noted that Judge Bibas' reasoning in the Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence case diverged from earlier rulings on fair use in key ways. His decision emphasized the commercial and competitive nature of the AI firm's actions. But one of the most significant departures in Judge Bibas' analysis was his interpretation of "transformative use," a cornerstone of fair use jurisprudence. In previous cases, courts have often found fair use when copyrighted material was repurposed to serve a new or different function.

This decision could have far-reaching implications for the AI industry, potentially complicating fair use arguments for companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, who are facing similar copyright lawsuits. These tech giants argue that their AI systems make fair use of copyrighted material by studying it to create new content, while copyright owners contend that the companies use their work to generate competing content that threatens their livelihoods.

"If this decision is followed elsewhere, it's really bad for the generative AI companies," Cornell University professor James Grimmelmann told Wired. He added that Bibas' judgment points to much of the case law that generative AI companies are citing to argue fair use is "irrelevant."

Chris Mammen, a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson specializing in intellectual property law, concurred that this ruling could complicate AI companies' fair use arguments, although the impact may vary from case to case. "It puts a finger on the scale towards holding that fair use doesn't apply," he mentioned.

The ruling has already had significant consequences for Ross Intelligence, which shut down in 2021 due to the cost of litigation. Of course, many of the AI companies still engaged in legal battles, such as OpenAI and Google, are financially equipped to weather prolonged legal fights.

Congstar überarbeitet das Postpaid-Angebot der Allnet Flats mit mehr inkludiertem Datenvolumen und wahlweise höherer Geschwindigkeit im 5G-Netz. Die P......

Something to look forward to: AMD's naming scheme for the upcoming Radeon RX 9070 series along with the firm's various comments and statements woul......

At a glance Expert's Rating Pros File backup and sync, disk imaging, disaster recovery.