Policy – Page 34

Senate GOP budget bill has little-noticed provision that could hurt your Wi-Fi

Policy, Spectrum Auction, wi-fi / Paul Patrick / July 1, 2025

Cruz bill could take 6 GHz spectrum away from Wi-Fi, give it to mobile carriers.

Credit: Getty Image | BlackJack3D

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has a plan for spectrum auctions that could take frequencies away from Wi-Fi and reallocate them for the exclusive use of wireless carriers. The plan would benefit AT&T, which is based in Cruz’s home state, along with Verizon and T-Mobile.

Cruz’s proposal revives a years-old controversy over whether the entire 6 GHz band should be devoted to Wi-Fi, which can use the large spectrum band for faster speeds than networks that rely solely on the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. Congress is on the verge of passing legislation that would require spectrum to be auctioned off for full-power, commercially licensed use, and the question is where that spectrum will come from.

When the House of Representatives passed its so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill,” it excluded all of the frequencies between 5.925 and 7.125 gigahertz from the planned spectrum auctions. But Cruz’s version of the budget reconciliation bill, which is moving quickly toward a final vote, removed the 6 GHz band’s protection from spectrum auctions. The Cruz bill is also controversial because it would penalize states that regulate artificial intelligence.

Instead of excluding the 6 GHz band from auctions, Cruz’s bill would instead exclude the 7.4–8.4 GHz band used by the military. Under conditions set by the bill, it could be hard for the Commerce Department and Federal Communications Commission to fulfill the Congressional mandate without taking some spectrum away from Wi-Fi.

The agencies will have to take spectrum “from somebody who you can take it away from,” Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Ars.

“The most vulnerable non-federal bands”

The Cruz plan could take 200 MHz or more away from the 1,200 MHz currently allocated to Wi-Fi between 5.925 and 7.125 GHz. It could also take spectrum from the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS), which goes from 3.55 to 3.7 GHz. (See this previous article for a much longer discussion of CBRS.)

Michael Calabrese of New America’s Open Technology Institute told Ars that 6 GHz and CBRS “are the most vulnerable non-federal bands for reallocation and auction.” While the spectrum for auctions is to come from frequencies between 1.3 and 10.5 GHz, much of that spectrum will be off-limits either because it’s specifically excluded or because it would be more difficult to reallocate.

“About half the spectrum in that range is federal, and then the rest has already been auctioned for cellular mobile use or is assigned to other critical users such as aviation and satellites,” said Calabrese, who directs the Open Technology Institute’s Wireless Future Project.

Another factor cited by Calabrese is that the FCC, under Chairman Brendan Carr, is looking to make new spectrum available to low-Earth orbit satellites like those used by Elon Musk’s Starlink network. Carr is also “the leading champion of 5G in the mobile industry” and inclined to devote more frequencies to mobile carriers, Calabrese said.

Wi-Fi bottleneck

Feld said the 6 GHz Wi-Fi spectrum would be a likely target because deployments in the band are just starting. By contrast, the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands have been allocated to Wi-Fi for a long time, are heavily used, and modifying existing devices to stop using parts of the bands would be impractical.

Arguing that 6 GHz is crucial for Wi-Fi’s future, Calabrese said that “the bottleneck limiting home and business broadband capacity is no longer the Internet connection, but the quality of the Wi-Fi. Most Wi-Fi still relies on a much smaller amount of unlicensed spectrum at 2.4 and 5 GHz, which limits throughput to about 400Mbps and connects fewer devices to the same access point.”

The Wi-Fi 6E standard adds support for 6 GHz spectrum, and the in-development Wi-Fi 7 will take full advantage of the band, Calabrese said. “By leveraging access to the entire 6 GHz band, Wi-Fi 7 can nearly double speeds, support hundreds of devices in a location, prioritize lag-sensitive applications like real-time video, and support emerging future apps such as virtual reality and telepresence that will be used almost entirely indoors,” he said.

We contacted Cruz’s office last week about his bill’s potential impact on Wi-Fi in the 6 GHz band but did not receive a response.

Ajit Pai’s FCC allocated 6 GHz to Wi-Fi

The 6 GHz band was allocated to Wi-Fi in April 2020 under then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, during the first Trump administration. CTIA-The Wireless Association, the major lobby group representing mobile carriers seeking more exclusive licenses, argued that Wi-Fi didn’t need the entire band. The CTIA called it a “6 GHz giveaway,” saying that “cable, Facebook, and Google are demanding more than double the 6 GHz spectrum that other nations are considering making available for services like Wi-Fi.”

Pai—who is now the president and CEO of CTIA—rejected the group’s arguments in the April 2020 decision. The Pai FCC’s order said that “providing new opportunities for unlicensed operations across the entire 6 GHz band can help address the critical need for providing additional spectrum resources for unlicensed operations,” and enable use of “several 160-megahertz channels as well as 320-megahertz channels.”

Making the whole band available for Wi-Fi “promotes more efficient and productive use of the spectrum,” whereas “repurposing large portions of the 6 GHz band for new licensed services would diminish the benefits of such use to the American public,” the Pai FCC said. With home Internet services providing gigabit speeds, Wi-Fi needed more spectrum to avoid becoming “the bottleneck for faster speeds at home,” the FCC said.

Now that he’s CEO of the CTIA, Pai is leading the primary group that is pushing for 6 GHz to be partially reallocated to mobile carriers. When contacted by Ars, a CTIA spokesperson said last week that the “upper 6 GHz band is the next global 5G band,” and that many countries are “using or planning to use at least the upper part of the band (6.425–7.125 GHz) for licensed commercial use.”

CTIA also said that Wi-Fi adoption in 6 GHz “is moving very slowly,” citing OpenSignal research, and that the Trump administration and FCC should “consider all possible options to address our spectrum shortfall.”

While CTIA has repeatedly claimed that US carriers are facing a spectrum shortfall, executives at the major telecoms have told investors the opposite. AT&T CFO Pascal Desroches said this month that the company has “no pressing need” to “acquire spectrum in the next 12, 24, even 36 months.” Verizon Consumer Group CEO Sowmyanarayan Sampath said in May 2024 that the company has “almost unlimited spectrum.” T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert said in December that “we have lots of spectrum we haven’t put into the fight yet,” as the carrier had only deployed 60 percent of its midband spectrum for 5G.

Divvying up spectrum

The 6 GHz band is not just for Wi-Fi as it is also used for fixed microwave links, satellite services, and certain types of mobile operations. Wi-Fi devices operating in 6 GHz must do so at low power to avoid interfering with incumbent services, and in most of the band must operate indoors only. Currently, Wi-Fi is allowed to use the entire 1,200 MHz band indoors at low power. Outdoor, higher-power use is allowed in 850 of the 1,200 MHz.

While Wi-Fi’s access to 6 GHz is limited, Feld said the band is extremely important. He said that Wi-Fi in 6 GHz needs bigger channels than traditional Wi-Fi had, and that taking part of the band away from Wi-Fi would reduce the number of large channels and require “crowding a lot more devices into a much smaller space.”

The House-approved spectrum plan pertains to frequencies between 1.3 and 10 GHz, while Cruz’s Senate plan is for frequencies between 1.3 and 10.5 GHz. The House would require at least 600 MHz to be auctioned from the entire band. Cruz calls for at least 800 MHz to be auctioned, of which 500 MHz would be taken from federal users. The House and Cruz auction plans both exclude 3.1 to 3.45 GHz, which is used by the military.

For non-federal spectrum, Cruz’s plan says that “not less than 300 megahertz” must be auctioned. This must include at least 100 MHz from 3.98 to 4.2 GHz, but the plan doesn’t specify where the rest of the 300 MHz or more would be taken from.

Because of the “not less than” language, more than 200 MHz could be taken from sources that include the current Wi-Fi and CBRS allocations. Calabrese said he worries that the amount taken from Wi-Fi could be significantly higher than 200 MHz, as “the mobile industry wants much more.”

Big venues need better Wi-Fi

Calabrese said he expects the biggest impact of reducing Wi-Fi’s use of 6 GHz at “busy venues such as schools, airports, sporting arenas, shopping malls, all the different places where many people gather together and try to get on the same access points and unlicensed spectrum through Wi-Fi.”

Calabrese said that enterprise use of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies would also be affected. He gave the example of Amazon using indoor Wi-Fi to operate thousands of robots in fulfillment centers. Extending Wi-Fi to 6 GHz is “about connecting the dozens of in-home devices that we can expect in the future as well as supporting the extremely high-bandwidth applications that are emerging for indoor use,” he said.

Calabrese argued that Wi-Fi can make better use of the spectrum than mobile carriers because cellular signals have trouble penetrating walls, and most Internet traffic on mobile devices travels over Wi-Fi instead of cellular networks.

“All the new applications envisioned for both 5G and 6G are inherently indoor applications, and mobile signals don’t penetrate well indoors… Wi-Fi would use the band ubiquitously, indoors and outdoors,” he said.

Taking spectrum from federal users has also fueled concerns about military operations. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, said in a speech last night that the “auction will fundamentally compromise our defense capabilities, while endangering aviation and important federal capabilities like weather forecasting and scientific research.” Drone operations are among the uses that would be compromised, she said.

Feld: People downplaying risk “kidding themselves”

Cable companies are deploying Wi-Fi 7 routers and supporting continued use of the 6 GHz band for Wi-Fi. The CableLabs industry group said the band is particularly crucial in high-density environments, that “any proposals to reduce or repurpose 6 GHz unlicensed spectrum would be devastating to Wi-Fi performance,” and that policymakers should allocate more spectrum for unlicensed use to support the growth of Wi-Fi instead of reallocating spectrum from Wi-Fi to mobile carriers.

Comcast and Charter joined tech companies and advocacy groups in a June 2 letter, organized by the Wi-Fi Alliance industry group, that urged Cruz and other congressional leaders to preserve 6 GHz for Wi-Fi. (Disclosure: The Advance/Newhouse Partnership, which owns 12 percent of Charter, is part of Advance Publications, which owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast.) Tech companies that signed the letter include HP, Cisco, Broadcom, Juniper, Apple, Amazon, and Meta.

The 6 GHz band is “perfectly suited to indoor networking that is the hallmark of Wi-Fi, while being flexible enough to support targeted outdoor uses… Shipments of 6 GHz-enabled consumer devices in North America, totaling 95 million last year, are expected to reach nearly 370 million per year by 2029,” the letter said.

Aside from that letter, Feld said that cable and tech companies haven’t been particularly active in opposing the potential reallocation of 6 GHz frequencies. “Amazon and the other companies that signed onto this letter, they’re like, ‘well we have a lot of things that we want as part of this bill. We want the tax break. We want other stuff. We’re not willing to get out there and make a big deal about it for fear of pissing off Cruz,'” Feld said.

Feld also speculated that some people think that lawmakers “can’t possibly be serious about pulling back Wi-Fi now that we’re deploying in the band.” In Feld’s opinion, “they’re kidding themselves.”

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Senate GOP budget bill has little-noticed provision that could hurt your Wi-Fi Read More »

In a wild time for copyright law, the US Copyright Office has no leader

AI, copyright, Policy, syndication, US Copyright Office / Paul Patrick / June 28, 2025

Rudderless Copyright Office has taken on new prominence during the AI boom.

It’s a tumultuous time for copyright in the United States, with dozens of potentially economy-shaking AI copyright lawsuits winding through the courts. It’s also the most turbulent moment in the US Copyright Office’s history. Described as “sleepy” in the past, the Copyright Office has taken on new prominence during the AI boom, issuing key rulings about AI and copyright. It also hasn’t had a leader in more than a month.

In May, Copyright Register Shira Perlmutter was abruptly fired by email by the White House’s deputy director of personnel. Perlmutter is now suing the Trump administration, alleging that her firing was invalid; the government maintains that the executive branch has the authority to dismiss her. As the legality of the ouster is debated, the reality within the office is this: There’s effectively nobody in charge. And without a leader actually showing up at work, the Copyright Office is not totally business-as-usual; in fact, there’s debate over whether the copyright certificates it’s issuing could be challenged.

The firing followed a pattern. The USCO is part of the Library of Congress; Perlmutter had been appointed to her role by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden. A few days before Perlmutter’s dismissal, Hayden, who had been in her role since 2016, was also fired by the White House via email. The White House appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who had previously served as President Trump’s defense attorney, as the new acting Librarian of Congress.

Two days after Pelmutter’s firing, Justice Department official Paul Perkins showed up at the Copyright Office, along with his colleague Brian Nieves. According to an affidavit from Perlmutter, they were carrying “printed versions of emails” from Blanche indicating that they had been appointed to new roles within the Copyright Office. Perkins, the email said, was designated as Acting Register of Copyrights. In other words, he was Perlmutter’s replacement.

But was Blanche actually the acting Librarian, and thus able to appoint Perkins as such? Within the Library of Congress, someone else had already assumed the role—Robert Newlen, Hayden’s former second-in-command, who has worked at the LOC since the 1970s. Following Hayden’s ouster, Newlen emailed LOC staff asserting that he was the acting Librarian—never mentioning Blanche—and noting that “Congress is engaged with the White House” on how to proceed.

In her lawsuit, Perlmutter argues that only the Librarian of Congress can fire and appoint a new Register. In a filing on Tuesday, defendants argued that the president does indeed have the authority to fire and appoint the Librarian of Congress and that his appointees then have the ability to choose a new Copyright Register.

Neither the Department of Justice nor the White House responded to requests for comment on this issue; the Library of Congress declined to comment.

Perkins and Nieves did not enter the USCO office or assume the roles they purported to fill the day they showed up. And since they left, sources within the Library of Congress tell WIRED, they have never returned, nor have they assumed any of the duties associated with the roles. These sources say that Congress is in talks with the White House to reach an agreement over these personnel disputes.

A congressional aide familiar with the situation told WIRED that Blanche, Perkins, and Nieves had not shown up for work “because they don’t have jobs to show up to.” The aide continued: “As we’ve always maintained, the President has no authority to appoint them. Robert Newlen has always been the Acting Librarian of Congress.”

If talks are happening, they remain out of public view. But Perlmutter does have some members of Congress openly on her side. “The president has no authority to remove the Register of Copyrights. That power lies solely with the Librarian of Congress. I’m relieved that the situation at the Library and Copyright Office has stabilized following the administration’s unconstitutional attempt to seize control for the executive branch. I look forward to quickly resolving this matter in a bipartisan way,” Senator Alex Padilla tells WIRED in a statement.

In the meantime, the Copyright Office is in the odd position of attempting to carry on as though it wasn’t missing its head. Immediately after Perlmutter’s dismissal, the Copyright Office paused issuing registration certificates “out of an abundance of caution,” according to USCO spokesperson Lisa Berardi Marflak, who says the pause impacted around 20,000 registrations. It resumed activities on May 29 but is now sending out registration certificates with a blank spot where Perlmutter’s signature would ordinarily be.

This unusual change has prompted discussion amongst copyright experts as to whether the registrations are now more vulnerable to legal challenges. The Copyright Office maintains that they are valid: “There is no requirement that the Register’s signature must appear on registration certificates,” says Berardi Marflak.

In a motion related to Perlmutter’s lawsuit, though, she alleges that sending out the registrations without a signature opens them up to “challenges in litigation,” something outside copyright experts have also pointed out. “It’s true the law doesn’t explicitly require a signature,” IP lawyer Rachael Dickson says. “However, the law really explicitly says that it’s the Register of Copyright determining whether the material submitted for the application is copyrightable subject matter.”

Without anyone acting as Register, Dickson thinks it would be reasonable to argue that the statutory requirements are not being met. “If you take them completely out of the equation, you have a really big problem,” she says. “Litigators who are trying to challenge a copyright registration’s validity will jump on this.”

Perlmutter’s lawyers have argued that leaving the Copyright Office without an active boss will cause dysfunction beyond the registration certificate issue, as the Register performs a variety of tasks, from advising Congress on copyright to recertifying organizations like the Mechanical Licensing Collective, the nonprofit in charge of administering royalties for streaming and download music in the United States. Since the MLC’s certification is up right now, Perlmutter would ordinarily be moving forward with recertifying the organization; as her lawsuit notes, right now, the recertification process is not moving forward.

The MLC may not be as impacted by Perlmutter’s absence as the complaint suggests. A source close to the MLC told WIRED that the organization does indeed need to be recertified but that the law doesn’t require the recertification process to be completed within a specific time frame, so it will be able to continue operating as usual.

Still, there are other ways that the lack of a boss is a clear liability. The Copyright Claims Board, a three-person tribunal that resolves some copyright disputes, needs to replace one of its members this year, as a current board member, who did not reply to a request for comment, is leaving. The job posting is already live and says applications are being reviewed, but as the position is supposed to be appointed by the Librarian of Congress with the guidance of the Copyright Register, it’s unclear how exactly it will be filled. A source familiar at the Library of Congress tells WIRED that Newlen could make the appointment if necessary, but they “expect there to be some kind of greater resolution by then.”

As they wait for the resolution, it remains an especially inopportune time for a headless Copyright Office. Perlmutter was fired just days after the office released a hotly contested report on generative AI training and fair use. That report has already been heavily cited in a new class action lawsuit against AI tools Suno and Udio, even though it was technically a “prepublication” version and not finalized. But everyone looking to see what a final report will say—or what guidance the office will issue next—can only keep waiting.

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what’s next, delivering the most original and complete take you’ll find anywhere on innovation’s impact on technology, science, business and culture.

In a wild time for copyright law, the US Copyright Office has no leader Read More »

Supreme Court overturns 5th Circuit ruling that upended Universal Service Fund

Policy, Supreme Court, Universal Service Fund / Kris Guyer / June 28, 2025

Finally, the Consumers’ Research position produces absurd results, divorced from any reasonable understanding of constitutional values. Under its view, a revenue-raising statute containing non-numeric, qualitative standards can never pass muster, no matter how tight the constraints they impose. But a revenue-raising statute with a numeric limit will always pass muster, even if it effectively leaves an agency with boundless power. In precluding the former and approving the latter, the Consumers’ Research approach does nothing to vindicate the nondelegation doctrine or the separation of powers.

The Gorsuch dissent said the “combination” question isn’t the deciding factor. He said the only question that needs to be answered is whether Congress violated the Constitution by delegating the power to tax to the FCC.

“As I see it, this case begins and ends with the first question. Section 254 [of the Communications Act] impermissibly delegates Congress’s taxing power to the FCC, and knowing that is enough to know the Fifth Circuit’s judgment should be affirmed,” Gorsuch said.

“Green light” for FCC to support Internet access

In the Gorsuch view, it doesn’t matter whether the FCC exceeded its authority by delegating Universal Service management to a private administrative company. “As far as I can tell, and as far as petitioners have informed us, this Court has never approved legislation allowing an executive agency to tax domestically unless Congress itself has prescribed the tax rate,” Gorsuch wrote.

The FCC and Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to reverse the 5th Circuit decision. The court also received a challenge from broadband-focused advocacy groups and several lobby groups representing ISPs.

“Today is a great day,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, counsel for the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society; the National Digital Inclusion Alliance; and the Center for Media Justice. “We will need some time to sort through the details of today’s decision, but what matters most is that the Supreme Court has given the green light to the FCC to continue to support Internet access to the tens of millions of Americans and the thousands of schools, libraries and rural hospitals that rely on the Universal Service Fund.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr praised the ruling but said he plans to make changes to Universal Service. “I am glad to see the court’s decision today and welcome it as an opportunity to turn the FCC’s focus towards the types of reforms necessary to ensure that all Americans have a fair shot at next-generation connectivity,” Carr said.

Supreme Court overturns 5th Circuit ruling that upended Universal Service Fund Read More »

Supreme Court upholds Texas porn law that caused Pornhub to leave the state

Policy, porn, Supreme Court, texas / Rejus Almole / June 28, 2025

Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan said that in similar cases, the court applied strict scrutiny, “a highly rigorous but not fatal form of constitutional review, to laws regulating protected speech based on its content.”

“Texas’s law defines speech by content and tells people entitled to view that speech that they must incur a cost to do so,” Kagan wrote. “That is, under our First Amendment law, a direct (not incidental) regulation of speech based on its content—which demands strict scrutiny.”

The Texas law applies to websites in which more than one-third of the content “is sexual material harmful to minors.” Kagan described the law’s ID requirement as a deterrent to exercising one’s First Amendment rights.

“It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits—respecting speech many find repulsive—to a website operator, and then to… who knows? The operator might sell the information; the operator might be hacked or subpoenaed,” Kagan’s dissent said. The law requires website users to verify their ages by submitting “a ‘government-issued identification’ like a driver’s license or ‘transactional data’ associated with things like a job or mortgage,” Kagan wrote.

Limiting no more speech than necessary

Under strict scrutiny, the court must ask whether the law is “the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest,” Kagan wrote. A state facing that standard must show it has limited no more adult speech than is necessary to achieve its goal.

“Texas can of course take measures to prevent minors from viewing obscene-for-children speech. But if a scheme other than H. B. 1181 can just as well accomplish that objective and better protect adults’ First Amendment freedoms, then Texas should have to adopt it (or at least demonstrate some good reason not to),” Kagan wrote.

The majority decision said that applying strict scrutiny “would call into question all age-verification requirements, even longstanding in-person requirements.” It also said the previous rulings cited in the dissent “all involved laws that banned both minors and adults from accessing speech that was at most obscene only to minors. The Court has never before considered whether the more modest burden of an age-verification requirement triggers strict scrutiny.”

Supreme Court upholds Texas porn law that caused Pornhub to leave the state Read More »

Stung by customer losses, Comcast says all its new plans have unlimited data

Comcast, data caps, Policy / Tim Belzer / June 28, 2025

With Comcast trying to figure out how to stop losing broadband customers, the cable firm yesterday announced new plans that are available nationwide and do not have data caps.

Comcast said it is offering “four simple national Internet tiers that include unlimited data and the advanced Xfinity WiFi Gateway for one low monthly price.” Customers whose current plans have data caps won’t automatically get unlimited data and would have to switch to a new plan to remove that annoying limit from their accounts.

“Customers can repackage into one of our new plans that include unlimited data if they don’t have it already with their existing plan,” a Comcast spokesperson told Ars today.

Comcast’s press release said there is a five-year price guarantee in which the plan costs range from $55 to $115 a month, before taxes and fees, for download speeds ranging from 300Mbps to 2Gbps. There’s also a one-year guarantee in which the prices for the same plans range from $40 to $100.

The Comcast Xfinity website today indicated that the one- and five-year price guarantees are only available to new customers. However, the Comcast spokesperson indicated to us that existing customers can get the price guarantee when switching to an unlimited data plan. Getting promised deals can often be difficult, particularly while a cable company is changing its offerings, so we wouldn’t be surprised if customers have difficulty obtaining the unlimited plan at the lowest advertised prices.

Stung by customer losses, Comcast says all its new plans have unlimited data Read More »

Judge: Pirate libraries may have profited from Meta torrenting 80TB of books

AI, AI training, BItTorrent, copyright, copyright infringement, libgen, LLaMA, Meta, online piracy, Policy, shadow libraries, torrenting / Paul Patrick / June 27, 2025

It could certainly look worse for Meta if authors manage to present evidence supporting the second way that torrenting could be relevant to the case, Chhabaria suggested.

“Meta downloading copyrighted material from shadow libraries” would also be relevant to the character of the use, “if it benefitted those who created the libraries and thus supported and perpetuated their unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted works,” Chhabria wrote.

Counting potential strikes against Meta, Chhabria pointed out that the “vast majority of cases” involving “this sort of peer-to-peer file-sharing” are found to “constitute copyright infringement.” And it likely doesn’t help Meta’s case that “some of the libraries Meta used have themselves been found liable for infringement.”

However, Meta may overcome this argument, too, since book authors “have not submitted any evidence” that potentially shows how Meta’s downloading may perhaps be “propping up” or financially benefiting pirate libraries.

Finally, Chhabria noted that the “last issue relating to the character of Meta’s use” of books in regards to its torrenting is “the relationship between Meta’s downloading of the plaintiffs’ books and Meta’s use of the books to train Llama.”

Authors had tried to argue that these elements were distinct. But Chhabria said there’s no separating the fact that Meta downloaded the books to serve the “highly transformative” purpose of training Llama.

“Because Meta’s ultimate use of the plaintiffs’ books was transformative, so too was Meta’s downloading of those books,” Chhabria wrote.

AI training rulings may get more authors paid

Authors only learned of Meta’s torrenting through discovery in the lawsuit, and because of that, Chhabria noted that “the record on Meta’s alleged distribution is incomplete.”

It’s possible that authors may be able to show evidence that Meta “contributed to the BitTorrent network” by providing significant computing power that could’ve meaningfully assisted shadow libraries, Chhabria said in a footnote.

Judge: Pirate libraries may have profited from Meta torrenting 80TB of books Read More »

After a week, Trump Mobile drops claim that Trump phone is “made in the USA”

Policy, Tech, trump mobile, trump phone / Mike M. / June 26, 2025

The Trump phone was announced last week with a claim that the device would be made entirely in America, and people were rightly skeptical. Trump Mobile’s $500 T1 Phone “is a sleek, gold smartphone engineered for performance and proudly designed and built in the United States for customers who expect the best from their mobile carrier,” the Trump Organization said in a press release.

But with electronics supply chain experts casting doubt on the feasibility of designing and building an American-made phone in a short span of time, Trump Mobile’s website doesn’t currently promise an American-made phone. The website says the T1 is “designed with American values in mind,” that it is “brought to life right here in the USA,” and that there are “American hands behind every device.”

The Trump Mobile website previously said, “Our MADE IN THE USA ‘T1 Phone’ is available for pre-order now.” The phone was initially supposed to be available in August, but the date was changed to September, and now the website simply says it will be available “later this year.”

The Verge pointed out the website’s vague claims in an article today. “One of the phone’s main selling points was that it was to be made in America,” but “sometime in the last several days, the Trump Mobile site appears to have been scrubbed of all language indicating the phone is to be made in the USA,” the article said, adding that the website previously had a “huge banner on the homepage that says the T1 is ‘MADE IN THE USA.'”

When contacted by Ars today, a Trump Mobile spokesperson said, “The T1 phones are proudly being made in America. Speculation to the contrary is simply inaccurate. We’re excited to launch the phones later this year.” Trump Mobile did not explain why it removed the “made in the USA” claim from its website. We also contacted the Trump organization and will update this article if we get a response.

After a week, Trump Mobile drops claim that Trump phone is “made in the USA” Read More »

Is DOGE doomed to fail? Some experts are ready to call it.

department of government efficiency, doge, Donald Trump, elon musk, Policy / Tim Belzer / June 26, 2025

Trump wants $45M to continue DOGE’s work. Critics warn costs already too high.

Federal workers and protestors spoke out against US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk and their push to gut federal services and impose mass layoffs earlier this year. Credit: Pacific Press / Contributor | LightRocket

Critics are increasingly branding Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as a failure, including lawmakers fiercely debating how much funding to allot next year to the controversial agency.

On Tuesday, Republicans and Democrats sparred over DOGE’s future at a DOGE subcommittee hearing, according to NextGov, a news site for federal IT workers. On one side, Republicans sought to “lock in” and codify the “DOGE process” for supposedly reducing waste and fraud in government, and on the other, Democrats argued that DOGE has “done the opposite” of its intended mission and harmed Americans in the process.

DOGE has “led to poor services, a brain drain on our federal government, and it’s going to cost taxpayers money long term,” Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) argued.

For now, DOGE remains a temporary government agency that could sunset as soon as July 4, 2026. Under Musk’s leadership, it was supposed to save the US government a trillion dollars. But so far, DOGE only reports saving about $180 billion—and doubt has been cast on DOGE’s math ever since reports revealed that nearly 40 percent of the savings listed on the DOGE site were “bogus,” Elaine Kamarck, director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institute, wrote in a report detailing DOGE’s exposed failures.

The “DOGE process” that Republicans want to codify, Kamarck explained, typically begins with rushed mass layoffs. That’s soon followed by offers for buyouts or deferred resignations, before the government eventually realizes it’s lost critical expertise and starts scrambling to rehire workers or rescind buyout offers after “it becomes apparent” that a heavily gutted agency “is in danger of malfunctioning.”

Kamarck warned that DOGE appeared to be using the firings of federal workers to test the “unitary executive” theory, “popular among conservatives,” that argues that “the president has more power than Congress.” Consider how DOGE works to shut down agencies funded by Congress without seeking lawmakers’ approval by simply removing critical workers key to operations, Kamarck suggested, like DOGE did early on at the National Science Foundation.

Democrats’ witness at the DOGE hearing—Emily DiVito of the economic policy think tank Groundwork Collaborative—suggested that extensive customer service problems at the Social Security Administration was just one powerful example of DOGE’s negative impacts affecting Americans today.

Some experts expect the damage of DOGE’s first few months could ripple across Trump’s entire term. “The rapid rehirings are a warning sign” that the government “has lost more capacities and expertise that could prove critical—and difficult to replace—in the months and years ahead,” experts told CNN.

By codifying the DOGE process, as Republicans wish to do, the government would seemingly only perpetuate this pattern, which could continue to be disastrous for Americans relying on government programs.

“There are time bombs all over the place in the federal government because of this,” Kamarck told CNN. “They’ve wreaked havoc across nearly every agency.”

DOGE spikes costs for Americans, nonprofit warns

Citizens for Ethics, a nonpartisan nonprofit striving to end government secrecy, estimated this week that DOGE cuts at just a few agencies “could result in a loss of over $10 billion in US-based economic activity.”

The shuttering of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alone—which Musk allegedly stands to personally benefit from—likely robbed American taxpayers of even more. The nonprofit noted that agency clawed back “over $26 billion in funds” from irresponsible businesses between 2011 and 2021 before its work was blocked.

Additionally, DOGE cuts at the Internal Revenue Service—which could “end or close audits of wealthy individuals and corporations” due to a lack of staffing—could cost the US an estimated $500 billion in dodged taxes, the nonprofit said. Partly due to conflicts like these, Kamarck suggested that when it finally comes time to assess DOGE’s success, the answer to both “did federal spending or the federal deficit shrink?” will “almost surely be no.”

As society attempts to predict the full extent of DOGE’s potential harms, The Wall Street Journal spoke to university students who suggested that regulatory clarity could possibly straighten out DOGE’s efforts now that Musk is no longer pushing for mass firings. At the DOGE hearing, Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) suggested the only way to ensure DOGE hits its trillion-dollar goal is to “make sure these cuts aren’t just temporary” and pass laws “to streamline agencies, eliminate redundant programs and give the president the authority to fire bureaucrats who don’t do their jobs.”

But one finance student, Troy Monte, suggested to WSJ that DOGE has already cost the Trump administration “stability, expertise, and public trust,” opining, “the cost of DOGE won’t be measured in dollars, but in damage.”

Max Stier, CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, told CNN that when DOGE borrowed the tech industry tactic of moving fast and breaking things, then scrambling to fix what breaks, it exposed “the mosaic of incompetence and a failure on the part of this administration to understand the critical value that the breadth of government expertise provides.”

“This is not about a single incident,” Stier said. “It’s about a pattern that has implications for our government’s ability to meet not just the challenges of today but the critical challenges of tomorrow.”

DOGE’s future appears less certain without Musk

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) had hoped to subpoena Musk at the DOGE hearing to testify on DOGE’s agenda, but Republicans blocked her efforts, NextGov reported.

At the hearing, she alleged that “all of this talk about lowering costs and reducing waste is absolute BS. Their agenda is about one thing: making the federal government so weak that they can exploit it for their personal gain.”

Just yesterday, The Washington Post editorial board published an op-ed already declaring DOGE a failure. Former DOGE staffer Sahil Lavingia told NPR that he expects DOGE will “fizzle out” purely because DOGE failed to uncover as much fraud as Musk and Trump had alleged was spiking government costs.

Beyond obvious criticism (loudly voiced at myriad DOGE protests), it’s easy to understand why this pessimistic view is catching on, since even from a cursory glance at DOGE’s website, the agency’s momentum appears to be slowing since Musk’s abrupt departure in late May. The DOGE site’s estimated savings are supposed to be updated weekly—and one day aspire to be updated in real-time—but the numbers apparently haven’t changed a cent since a few days after Musk shed his “special government employee” label. The site notes the last update was on June 3.

In addition to Musk, several notable Musk appointees have also left DOGE. Most recently, Wired reported that one of Musk’s first appointees—19-year-old Edward “Big Balls” Coristine—is gone, quitting just weeks after receiving full-time employee status granted around the same time that Musk left. Lavingia told Wired that he’d heard “a lot” of people Musk hired have been terminated since his exit.

Rather than rely on a specific engineer spearheading DOGE initiatives across government, like Coristine appeared positioned to become in Musk’s absence, Trump cabinet members or individual agency heads may have more say over DOGE cuts in the future, Kamarck and Politico’s E&E News reported.

“The result so far is that post-Musk, DOGE is morphing into an agency-by-agency effort—no longer run by a central executive branch office, but by DOGE recruits who have been embedded in the agencies and by political appointees, such as cabinet secretaries, who are committed to the same objectives,” Kamarck wrote.

Whether Trump’s appointees can manage DOGE without Musk’s help or his appointees remains to be seen, as DOGE continues to seek new hires. While Musk’s appointed DOGE staff was heavily criticized from day one, Kamarck noted that at least Musk’s appointees appeared “to have a great deal of IT talent, something the federal government has been lacking since the beginning of the information age.”

Trump can extend the timeline for when DOGE sunsets, NextGov noted, and DOGE still has $22 million left over from this year to keep pursuing its goals, as lawmakers debate whether $45 million in funding is warranted.

Despite Trump and Musk’s very public recent fallout, White House spokesperson Kush Desai has said that Trump remains committed to fulfilling DOGE’s mission, but NPR noted his statement curiously didn’t mention DOGE by name.

“President Trump pledged to make our bloated government more efficient by slashing waste, fraud, and abuse. The administration is committed to delivering on this mandate while rectifying any oversights to minimize disruptions to critical government services,” Desai said.

Currently, there are several court-ordered reviews looking into exactly which government systems DOGE accessed, which could reveal more than what’s currently known about how much success—or failure—DOGE has had. Those reviews could expose how much training DOGE workers had before they were granted security clearances to access sensitive information, potentially spawning more backlash as DOGE’s work lurches forward.

Kamarck suggested that DOGE was “doomed to face early failures” because its “efforts were enacted on dubious legal grounds”—a fact that still seems to threaten the agency’s “permanence.” But if the next incoming president conducts an evaluation in 2029 and finds that DOGE’s efforts have not meaningfully reduced the size or spending of government, DOGE could possibly disappear. Former staffers hope that even more rehiring may resume if it does, E&E reported.

In the meantime, Americans relying on government programs must contend with the risk that they could lose assistance in the moments they need it most as long as the Musk-created “DOGE process” continues to be followed.

“Which one of these malfunctions will blow up first is anyone’s guess, but FEMA’s lack of preparedness for hurricane season is a good candidate,” Kamarck said.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Is DOGE doomed to fail? Some experts are ready to call it. Read More »

Anthropic destroyed millions of print books to build its AI models

AI, AI companies, AI development, AI ethics, AI law, AI research, AI training, Anthropic, Biz & IT, book scanning, Claude, copyright, fair use, google books, Internet Archive, legal rulings, machine learning, Policy, scanning, training data / Kris Guyer / June 26, 2025

But if you’re not intimately familiar with the AI industry and copyright, you might wonder: Why would a company spend millions of dollars on books to destroy them? Behind these odd legal maneuvers lies a more fundamental driver: the AI industry’s insatiable hunger for high-quality text.

The race for high-quality training data

To understand why Anthropic would want to scan millions of books, it’s important to know that AI researchers build large language models (LLMs) like those that power ChatGPT and Claude by feeding billions of words into a neural network. During training, the AI system processes the text repeatedly, building statistical relationships between words and concepts in the process.

The quality of training data fed into the neural network directly impacts the resulting AI model’s capabilities. Models trained on well-edited books and articles tend to produce more coherent, accurate responses than those trained on lower-quality text like random YouTube comments.

Publishers legally control content that AI companies desperately want, but AI companies don’t always want to negotiate a license. The first-sale doctrine offered a workaround: Once you buy a physical book, you can do what you want with that copy—including destroy it. That meant buying physical books offered a legal workaround.

And yet buying things is expensive, even if it is legal. So like many AI companies before it, Anthropic initially chose the quick and easy path. In the quest for high-quality training data, the court filing states, Anthropic first chose to amass digitized versions of pirated books to avoid what CEO Dario Amodei called “legal/practice/business slog”—the complex licensing negotiations with publishers. But by 2024, Anthropic had become “not so gung ho about” using pirated ebooks “for legal reasons” and needed a safer source.

Anthropic destroyed millions of print books to build its AI models Read More »

Key fair use ruling clarifies when books can be used for AI training

AI, AI models, Anthropic, Artificial Intelligence, Claude, copyright, copyright infringement, copyright law, large language models, LLMs, Policy / Kris Guyer / June 25, 2025

“This order doubts that any accused infringer could ever meet its burden of explaining why downloading source copies from pirate sites that it could have purchased or otherwise accessed lawfully was itself reasonably necessary to any subsequent fair use,” Alsup wrote. “Such piracy of otherwise available copies is inherently, irredeemably infringing even if the pirated copies are immediately used for the transformative use and immediately discarded.”

But Alsup said that the Anthropic case may not even need to decide on that, since Anthropic’s retention of pirated books for its research library alone was not transformative. Alsup wrote that Anthropic’s argument to hold onto potential AI training material it pirated in case it ever decided to use it for AI training was an attempt to “fast glide over thin ice.”

Additionally Alsup pointed out that Anthropic’s early attempts to get permission to train on authors’ works withered, as internal messages revealed the company concluded that stealing books was considered the more cost-effective path to innovation “to avoid ‘legal/practice/business slog,’ as cofounder and chief executive officer Dario Amodei put it.”

“Anthropic is wrong to suppose that so long as you create an exciting end product, every ‘back-end step, invisible to the public,’ is excused,” Alsup wrote. “Here, piracy was the point: To build a central library that one could have paid for, just as Anthropic later did, but without paying for it.”

To avoid maximum damages in the event of a loss, Anthropic will likely continue arguing that replacing pirated books with purchased books should water down authors’ fight, Alsup’s order suggested.

“That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the Internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft, but it may affect the extent of statutory damages,” Alsup noted.

Key fair use ruling clarifies when books can be used for AI training Read More »

Media Matters sues FTC, says agency is retaliating on behalf of Elon Musk

elon musk x, media matters, Policy / Rejus Almole / June 25, 2025

Media Matters for America sued the Federal Trade Commission yesterday, alleging that the FTC’s ongoing investigation into the group “has violated Media Matters’ First Amendment rights by retaliating against the organization for its reporting on Elon Musk and X.”

“The investigation is the latest effort by Elon Musk and his allies in the Trump administration to retaliate against Media Matters for its reporting on X, the social media site Musk controls, and it’s another example of the Trump administration weaponizing government authorities to target political opponents,” Media Matters said in a press release. The group said it has suffered financially because of “the cascade of litigation launched by Musk and his allies.”

The FTC’s investigative demand “makes no secret of its connection to Musk’s vindictive lawsuits,” and “probes Media Matters’ finances, editorial process, newsgathering activities, and affiliations with likeminded entities that monitor extremist content and other third parties,” Media Matters said in the lawsuit filed in US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Media Matters is a nonprofit journalism organization that has been targeted by Musk and Republicans for articles such as one showing that X placed advertisements next to pro-Nazi posts. Media Matters has faced probes from the Texas and Missouri attorneys general and a lawsuit filed by X. In the case involving Texas, a federal appeals court found in May that “Media Matters is the target of a government campaign of retaliation.”

Lawsuit: FTC “snoops into newsgathering activities”

The FTC sent a civil investigative demand (CID) on May 20, “apparently seeking to revive the state government investigations that had been blocked by this Court,” Media Matters said in its lawsuit yesterday. “The CID’s first substantive demand makes clear its connection to Musk’s lawsuits, seeking ‘all documents that Media Matters either produced or received in discovery in any litigation between Media Matters and X Corp. related to advertiser boycotts since 2023.'”

Media Matters sues FTC, says agency is retaliating on behalf of Elon Musk Read More »

UK looking to loosen Google’s control of its search engine

antitrust, cma, competition, competition and markets authority, Google, Policy, syndication, UK / Kris Guyer / June 24, 2025

Other conduct rules that the CMA is considering include requirements in how it ranks its search results and for Google’s distribution partners such as Apple to offer “choice screens” to help consumers switch more easily between search providers.

The CMA said Alphabet-owned Google’s dominance made the cost of search advertising “higher than would be expected” in a more competitive market.

Google on Tuesday slammed the proposals as “broad and unfocused” and said they could threaten the UK’s access to its latest products and services.

Oliver Bethell, Google’s senior director for competition, warned that “punitive regulations” could change how quickly Google launches new products in the UK.

“Proportionate, evidence-based regulation will be essential to preventing the CMA’s road map from becoming a roadblock to growth in the UK,” he added.

Bethell’s warning of the potential impact of any regulations on the wider UK economy comes after the government explicitly mandated the CMA to focus on supporting growth and investment while minimizing uncertainty for businesses.

Google said last year that it planned to invest $1 billion in a huge new data center just outside London.

The CMA’s probe comes after Google lost a pair of historic US antitrust cases over its dominance of search and its lucrative advertising business.

UK looking to loosen Google’s control of its search engine Read More »