I expected this result, but publishers are going to have to find a way to strike some balance in this arena. It’s kind of like the early days of music piracy - library patrons are going to find “other ways” to get their Kindle fix and it is not going to be pretty…
AND
What does this portend for AI bots scraping the internet (copyright and otherwise) for its knowledge base?
Some kind of “fair use” doctrine will have to emerge from the Courts if AI, in its present form, is ever going to get traction.
That one is going to be unbelievably difficult to achieve when they are devouring the entire internet in search of being the “best” AI…
Why?
Why can’t the folks developing AI just properly license all of the content necessary to train their A.I., or only use works which are legitimately in the public domain?
While I don’t much like Adobe, at least that’s what they did — everything for their system has a known and provable provenance.
They won’t.*
*IMHO
Why can’t the folks developing AI just properly license all of the content necessary to train their A.I., or only use works which are legitimately in the public domain?
Because it costs money and time and won’t be bothered to do something that comes even remotely close to ‘do the undoubtedly ethical thing’ without threat of lawsuit.
It’s why dance diffusion mentions VERY obviously that it’ll only go for public domain songs (love or hate the music industry, lawsuits are on their side) whereas stable diffusion just LOL’s at artists.
Pressure has been building for years to update the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. Between the EU and AI and cloud, there will be YUGE lobbying dollars thrown at this in the US.
Not ready to bet who gets the short end of the stick when it comes down.
It’s the artist.
Could anyone comment on if this sets a precedent (via the various IP law treaties) for other countries to rule similarly?
I’m thinking hypothetically, even if all is lost in the US, if for example the EU decides it is fair use, then simply change your IP to Switzerland and voilà, problem solved. 
Geez, a layperson asks a question and suddenly the whole room full of lawyers goes silent. 
Ok I admit, I know nothing, and don’t even know how to ask. (Case in point: I just looked up, Switzerland is actually not part of the EU. Always learn something new on TPCR…)
So let me rephrase: “Is there any hope left for archive.org?”
Don’t think there are any international legal specialists in the tribe Marty. If it were as simple as an EU/Swiss/Brit site, then I’m sure it would be available from a Chinese or Russian puppet state as well, right?
I know, I’m just poking fun.
Sometimes lawyers take common questions too seriously. Like when a layperson asks, he/she usually just wants a few opinions from people who are more knowledgeable, not necessarily textbook-exact answers.
(And I assume, if you were to give the exact answer, the post would run several pages. I often wonder at how lawyers can have casual chats between themselves, without turning into 3-hour meetings. )
Actually, I saw your question and couldn’t get back to it quickly enough because I was in the middle of writing a brief.:vb-agree: Here’s my $.02.
The short answer to your question is that the opinion of a single district court judge is not precedent. At this point, it’s only his opinion. No other Courts are bound to follow his decision. It must first wind its way up through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the District Court resides and, if that Court not only agrees with the District Judge but does so in a published opinion, then it is binding on all other lower courts in that Circuit. If that decision is appealed to the US Supreme Court, the Court decides to take the case and adopts the ruling of the District Court judge, only then does it become national precedent. (There is a different process for state courts who also deal with federal issues but I do digress).
So, the short-long answer is that there is no precedent yet. If there ever is, then your other qustion about whether a decision here in the US is precedential in the EU or other jurisdictions, that answer is basically no as well. Although EU Courts can be compelled under the Hague Convention to enforce a Judgment entered by a US Court, it can only be forced to address issues where the US Courts had clear jurisdiction, which leaves a hole large enough to drive a truck through. The decision of the US Court is little more than persuasive (a legal term for the judge being able to ignore it at will) on matters involving EU law.
See. Less than 3 hours. Actually, lawyers talk so much in short-hand that we often have long conversations in a very short period of time.
Sorry, I just had to chuckle at this. To me, I would have guessed ‘persuasive’ would mean the exact opposite of that.
And thank you for your explanation.
I have to say, I got the same tingles reading that I normally do when I crack open the back of a device. Except this time, I feel like I’m peering into the inner workings of society.
I get a sense of awe when I think of an attorney that argues an issue like this all the way to the Supreme Court. To think, it is your own understanding of technology, and your own ability to articulate that position, that will determine how a universal concept like “fair use” will go down into the modern age of AI and beyond.
Chilling, and absolutely fascinating.
Just a little follow up. If Archive.org has its servers in the U.S. they come under that jurisdiction but what happens if they have servers in Sweden? Has to be a reason TPB was located there, right?
Warning: I’m no expert on the matter.
Precedents only really matter within the same types of legal systems and even then, it is up to each nation state’s legal system.