←back to thread

Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement

(www.cnbc.com)
328 points rntn | 4 comments | 18 Jul 25 17:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ankit219 ◴[18 Jul 25 19:13 UTC] No.44608660[source]▶
Not just Meta, 40 EU companies urged EU to postpone roll out of the ai act by two years due to it's unclear nature. This code of practice is voluntary and goes beyond what is in the act itself. EU published it in a way to say that there would be less scrutiny if you voluntarily sign up for this code of practice. Meta would anyway face scrutiny on all ends, so does not seem to a plausible case to sign something voluntary.

One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way. For open source, it's a very hard requirement[1].

> GPAI model providers need to establish reasonable copyright measures to mitigate the risk that a downstream system or application into which a model is integrated generates copyright-infringing outputs, including through avoiding overfitting of their GPAI model. Where a GPAI model is provided to another entity, providers are encouraged to make the conclusion or validity of the contractual provision of the model dependent upon a promise of that entity to take appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works.

[1] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-commission-r...

replies(8): >>44610592 #>>44610641 #>>44610669 #>>44611112 #>>44612330 #>>44613357 #>>44617228 #>>44620292 #
m3sta ◴[19 Jul 25 03:27 UTC] No.44612330[source]▶
The quoted text makes sense when you understand that the EU provides a carveout for training on copyright protected works without a license. It's quite an elegant balance they've suggested despite the challenges it fails to avoid.
replies(1): >>44613883 #
Oras ◴[19 Jul 25 09:21 UTC] No.44613883[source]▶
Is that true? How can they decide to wipe out the intellectual property for an individual or entity? It’s not theirs to give it away.
replies(3): >>44613962 #>>44614016 #>>44616465 #
elsjaako ◴[19 Jul 25 09:38 UTC] No.44613962[source]▶
Copyright is not a god given right. It's an economic incentive created by government to make desired behavior (writing an publishing books) profitable.
replies(3): >>44614270 #>>44616163 #>>44617440 #
klabb3 ◴[19 Jul 25 15:12 UTC] No.44616163[source]▶
Yes, 100%. And that’s why throwing copyright selectively in the bin now when there’s an ongoing massive transfer of wealth from creators to mega corps, is so surprising. It’s almost as if governments were only protecting economic interests of creators when the creators were powerful (eg movie studios), going after individuals for piracy and DRM circumvention. Now that the mega corps are the ones pirating at a scale they get a free pass through a loophole designed for individuals (fair use).

Anyway, the show must go on so were unlikely to see any reversal of this. It’s a big experiment and not necessarily anything that will benefit even the model providers themselves in the medium term. It’s clear that the ”free for all” policy on grabbing whatever data you can get is already having chilling effects. From artists and authors not publishing their works publicly, to locking down of open web with anti-scraping. Were basically entering an era of adversarial data management, with incentives to exploit others for data while protecting the data you have from others accessing it.

replies(4): >>44616552 #>>44616611 #>>44616704 #>>44617293 #
vidarh ◴[19 Jul 25 16:09 UTC] No.44616704[source]▶
Why? Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators, 2) Statute of Anne, the birth of modern copyright law, protected printers - that is "big businesss" over creators anyway, so even that has largely always been a fiction.

But it is also increasingly dubious that the public gets a good deal out of copyright law anyway.

> From artists and authors not publishing their works publicly

The vast majority of creators have never been able to get remotely close to make a living from their creative work, and instead often when factoring in time lose money hand over fist trying to get their works noticed.

replies(2): >>44617570 #>>44619438 #
1. bryanrasmussen ◴[19 Jul 25 17:41 UTC] No.44617570[source]▶
I generally let it slide because these copyright discussions tend to be about America, and as such it can be assumed American law and what it inherits from British law is what pertains.

>Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators,

yes, in the U.S in the EU creators have moral rights to their works and the law is to protect their interests.

There are actually moral rights and rights of exploitation, in EU you can transfer the latter but not the former.

>But it is also increasingly dubious that the public gets a good deal out of copyright law anyway.

In the EU's view of copyright the public doesn't need to get a good deal, the creators of copyrighted works do.

replies(1): >>44617665 #
2. vidarh ◴[19 Jul 25 17:50 UTC] No.44617665[source]▶
> There are actually moral rights and rights of exploitation, in EU you can transfer the latter but not the former.

And when we talk about copyright we generally talk about the rights of exploitation, where the rationale used today is about the advancement of arts and sciences - a public benefit. There's a reason the name is English is copy-right, where the other Germanic languages focuses more on the work - in the Anglosphere the notion of moral rights as separate from rights of exploitation is well outside the mainstream.

> In the EU's view of copyright the public doesn't need to get a good deal, the creators of copyrighted works do.

Most individual nations copyright law still does uphold the pretence of being for the public good, however. Without that pretence, there is no moral basis for restricting the rights of the public the way copyright law does.

But it has nevertheless been abundantly clear all the way back to the Statute of Anne that any talk of either public goods or rights of exploitation for the creator are excuses, and that these laws if anything mostly exist for the protection of business interests.

replies(1): >>44617931 #
3. bryanrasmussen ◴[19 Jul 25 18:15 UTC] No.44617931[source]▶
>Most individual nations copyright law still does uphold the pretence of being for the public good, however. Without that pretence, there is no moral basis for restricting the rights of the public the way copyright law does.

I of course do not know all the individual EU country's rules, but my understanding was that the EU's view was what it was because derived at least from the previous understanding of its member nations. So the earlier French laws before ratification and implementation of the EU directive on author's rights in Law # 92-597 (1 July 1992) were also focused on the understanding of creators having creator's rights and that protecting these was the purpose of Copyright law, and that this pattern generally held throughout EU lands (at least any lands currently in the EU, I suppose pre-Brexit this was not the case)

You probably have some other examples but in my experience the European laws have for a long time held that copyright exists to protect the rights of creators and not of the public.

replies(1): >>44620684 #
4. vidarh ◴[20 Jul 25 00:10 UTC] No.44620684{3}[source]▶
> So the earlier French laws before ratification and implementation of the EU directive on author's rights in Law # 92-597 (1 July 1992) were also focused on the understanding of creators having creator's rights

French law, similar to e.g. Norwegian and German law, separated moral and proprietary rights.

Moral rights are not particularly relevant to this discussion, as they relate specifically to rights to e.g. be recognised as the author, and to protect the integrity of a work. They do not relate to actual copying and publication.

What we call copyright in English is largely proprietary/exploitation rights.

The historical foundation of the latter is firmly one of first granting righths on a case by case basis, often to printers rather than cretors, and then with the Statue of Anne that explicitly stated the goal of "encouragement of learning" right in the title of the act. This motivation was later e.g. made explicit in the US constitution.

Since you mention France, the National Assembly after the French Revolution took the stance that works by default were public property, and that copyright was an exception, in the same vein as per the Statute of Anne and US Constitution ("to promote the progress of science and useful arts").

Depository laws etc., which are near universal, are also firmly rooted in this view that copyright is a right grants that is provided on a quid pro quo basis: The work needs to be secured for the public for the future irrespective of continued commercial availability.