This is a good set of proposals to rein in AI through old-fashioned copyright and licensing methods … with one exception.
The article summarizes a longer report by Center for Journalism and Liberty. It defines the problem:
= = = = = START QUOTE:
A three-tiered market: a small number of large bilateral deals between major AI companies and major publishers; an emerging intermediary layer of licensing marketplaces that includes startups and Big Tech firms; and an uncompensated majority – the bulk of publishers and creators – that sits outside of any licensing or compensation framework.
= = = = = END QUOTE.
The article proposes:
Statutory Licensing Frameworks: Expand the copyright law to forestall tech workarounds. I’d favor simply REVERTING the law to its pre-1996 condition. When Disney bought the law and introduced “implicit copyright”, the biggest players instantly had ALL the advantages.
Collective Licensing and Sectoral Bargaining: Similar to how the music industry formerly regulated copyright use by radio and movies. Proposes that smaller publishers and authors should unionize. (I’ve been saying this.)
Transparency Requirements: Basic business law in other fields. If deals and licenses are announced, non-insider buyers have a chance. Registered copyright would accomplish most of this job. Under the pre-Disney law, you knew instantly whether you needed to pay or not. The federal database included the entire work or a large sample. You could determine precisely whether this passage was owned, and who owned it. Ideally transparency would also penetrate the NDA shield used by tech firms instead of patents and copyrights.
Attribution & Compensation built into the system, so the bots recognize where licenses exist and issue micro-royalties automatically. Real publishers have always done this manually, since their editors know the subject areas and recognize familiar content. This would be MUCH easier if all copyrights were explicitly registered as they were before 1996.
Inclusion of Local & Independent Media: I think this would be counter-productive. Special provisions for “inclusion” just create opportunities for fraud. This game has been running for a long time. Federal subsidies to “minority-owned” businesses allow fraudsters and gangsters to operate NGOs with token frontmen.
Polistra's Mill 