←back to thread

Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement

(www.cnbc.com)
328 points rntn | 2 comments | 18 Jul 25 17:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.408s | 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 #
bryanrasmussen ◴[19 Jul 25 17:28 UTC] No.44617440[source]▶
actually in much of the EU if not all of it Copyright is an intrinsic right of the creator.
replies(1): >>44617771 #
vidarh ◴[19 Jul 25 17:59 UTC] No.44617771[source]▶
It is a "right" created by law, is the point. This is not a right that is universally recognised, nor one that has existed since time immemorial, but a modern construction of governments that governments can choose to change or abolish.
replies(1): >>44617951 #
bryanrasmussen ◴[19 Jul 25 18:18 UTC] No.44617951[source]▶
what is a right that has existed since time immemorial? Generally rights that have existed "forever" are codified rights and, in the codification, described as being eternal. Hence Jefferson's reference to inalienable rights, which probably came as some surprise to King George III.

on edit: If we had a soundtrack the Clash Know Your Rights would be playing in this comment.

replies(3): >>44618026 #>>44618694 #>>44620749 #
1. cjs_ac ◴[19 Jul 25 19:44 UTC] No.44618694[source]▶
Copyright originates in the Statute of Anne[0]; its creation was therefore within living memory when the United States declared their independence.

No rights have existed 'forever', and both the rights and the social problems they intend to resolve are often quite recent (assuming you're not the sort of person who's impressed by a building that's 100 years old).

George III was certainly not surprised by Jefferson's claim to rights, given that the rights he claimed were copied (largely verbatim) from the Bill of Rights 1689[1]. The poor treatment of the Thirteen Colonies was due to Lord North's poor governance, the rights and liberties that the Founding Fathers demanded were long-established in Britain, and their complaints against absolute monarchy were complaints against a system of government that had been abolished a century before.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

replies(1): >>44619127 #
2. bryanrasmussen ◴[19 Jul 25 20:34 UTC] No.44619127[source]▶
>No rights have existed 'forever'

you should probably reread the text I responded to and then what I wrote, because you seem to think I believe there are rights that are not codified by humans in some way and are on a mission to correct my mistake.

>George III was certainly not surprised by Jefferson's claim to rights, given that the rights he claimed were copied (largely verbatim) from the Bill of Rights 1689

to repeat: Hence Jefferson's reference to inalienable rights, which probably came as some surprise to King George III.

inalienable modifies rights here, if George is surprised by any rights it is inalienable ones.

>Copyright originates in the Statute of Anne[0]; its creation was therefore within living memory when the United States declared their independence.

title of post is "Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement", I was under the impression that it had something to do with how the EU sees copyright and not how the U.S and British common law sees it.

Hence multiple comments referencing EU but I see I must give up and the U.S must have its way, evidently the Europe AI agreement is all about how copyright works in the U.S, prime arbiter of all law around the globe.