Policy – Page 37

OpenAI slams court order to save all ChatGPT logs, including deleted chats

AI, AI lawsuit, chatgpt, intellectual property lawsuits, openai, Policy / Kris Guyer / June 5, 2025

OpenAI defends privacy of hundreds of millions of ChatGPT users.

OpenAI is now fighting a court order to preserve all ChatGPT user logs—including deleted chats and sensitive chats logged through its API business offering—after news organizations suing over copyright claims accused the AI company of destroying evidence.

“Before OpenAI had an opportunity to respond to those unfounded accusations, the court ordered OpenAI to ‘preserve and segregate all output log data that would otherwise be deleted on a going forward basis until further order of the Court (in essence, the output log data that OpenAI has been destroying),” OpenAI explained in a court filing demanding oral arguments in a bid to block the controversial order.

In the filing, OpenAI alleged that the court rushed the order based only on a hunch raised by The New York Times and other news plaintiffs. And now, without “any just cause,” OpenAI argued, the order “continues to prevent OpenAI from respecting its users’ privacy decisions.” That risk extended to users of ChatGPT Free, Plus, and Pro, as well as users of OpenAI’s application programming interface (API), OpenAI said.

The court order came after news organizations expressed concern that people using ChatGPT to skirt paywalls “might be more likely to ‘delete all [their] searches’ to cover their tracks,” OpenAI explained. Evidence to support that claim, news plaintiffs argued, was missing from the record because so far, OpenAI had only shared samples of chat logs that users had agreed that the company could retain. Sharing the news plaintiffs’ concerns, the judge, Ona Wang, ultimately agreed that OpenAI likely would never stop deleting that alleged evidence absent a court order, granting news plaintiffs’ request to preserve all chats.

OpenAI argued the May 13 order was premature and should be vacated, until, “at a minimum,” news organizations can establish a substantial need for OpenAI to preserve all chat logs. They warned that the privacy of hundreds of millions of ChatGPT users globally is at risk every day that the “sweeping, unprecedented” order continues to be enforced.

“As a result, OpenAI is forced to jettison its commitment to allow users to control when and how their ChatGPT conversation data is used, and whether it is retained,” OpenAI argued.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence beyond speculation yet supporting claims that “OpenAI had intentionally deleted data,” OpenAI alleged. And supposedly there is not “a single piece of evidence supporting” claims that copyright-infringing ChatGPT users are more likely to delete their chats.

“OpenAI did not ‘destroy’ any data, and certainly did not delete any data in response to litigation events,” OpenAI argued. “The Order appears to have incorrectly assumed the contrary.”

At a conference in January, Wang raised a hypothetical in line with her thinking on the subsequent order. She asked OpenAI’s legal team to consider a ChatGPT user who “found some way to get around the pay wall” and “was getting The New York Times content somehow as the output.” If that user “then hears about this case and says, ‘Oh, whoa, you know I’m going to ask them to delete all of my searches and not retain any of my searches going forward,'” the judge asked, wouldn’t that be “directly the problem” that the order would address?

OpenAI does not plan to give up this fight, alleging that news plaintiffs have “fallen silent” on claims of intentional evidence destruction, and the order should be deemed unlawful.

For OpenAI, risks of breaching its own privacy agreements could not only “damage” relationships with users but could also risk putting the company in breach of contracts and global privacy regulations. Further, the order imposes “significant” burdens on OpenAI, supposedly forcing the ChatGPT maker to dedicate months of engineering hours at substantial costs to comply, OpenAI claimed. It follows then that OpenAI’s potential for harm “far outweighs News Plaintiffs’ speculative need for such data,” OpenAI argued.

“While OpenAI appreciates the court’s efforts to manage discovery in this complex set of cases, it has no choice but to protect the interests of its users by objecting to the Preservation Order and requesting its immediate vacatur,” OpenAI said.

Users panicked over sweeping order

Millions of people use ChatGPT daily for a range of purposes, OpenAI noted, “ranging from the mundane to profoundly personal.”

People may choose to delete chat logs that contain their private thoughts, OpenAI said, as well as sensitive information, like financial data from balancing the house budget or intimate details from workshopping wedding vows. And for business users connecting to OpenAI’s API, the stakes may be even higher, as their logs may contain their companies’ most confidential data, including trade secrets and privileged business information.

“Given that array of highly confidential and personal use cases, OpenAI goes to great lengths to protect its users’ data and privacy,” OpenAI argued.

It does this partly by “honoring its privacy policies and contractual commitments to users”—which the preservation order allegedly “jettisoned” in “one fell swoop.”

Before the order was in place mid-May, OpenAI only retained “chat history” for users of ChatGPT Free, Plus, and Pro who did not opt out of data retention. But now, OpenAI has been forced to preserve chat history even when users “elect to not retain particular conversations by manually deleting specific conversations or by starting a ‘Temporary Chat,’ which disappears once closed,” OpenAI said. Previously, users could also request to “delete their OpenAI accounts entirely, including all prior conversation history,” which was then purged within 30 days.

While OpenAI rejects claims that ordinary users use ChatGPT to access news articles, the company noted that including OpenAI’s business customers in the order made “even less sense,” since API conversation data “is subject to standard retention policies.” That means API customers couldn’t delete all their searches based on their customers’ activity, which is the supposed basis for requiring OpenAI to retain sensitive data.

“The court nevertheless required OpenAI to continue preserving API Conversation Data as well,” OpenAI argued, in support of lifting the order on the API chat logs.

Users who found out about the preservation order panicked, OpenAI noted. In court filings, they cited social media posts sounding alarms on LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter). They further argued that the court should have weighed those user concerns before issuing a preservation order, but “that did not happen here.”

One tech worker on LinkedIn suggested the order created “a serious breach of contract for every company that uses OpenAI,” while privacy advocates on X warned, “every single AI service ‘powered by’ OpenAI should be concerned.”

Also on LinkedIn, a consultant rushed to warn clients to be “extra careful” sharing sensitive data “with ChatGPT or through OpenAI’s API for now,” warning, “your outputs could eventually be read by others, even if you opted out of training data sharing or used ‘temporary chat’!”

People on both platforms recommended using alternative tools to avoid privacy concerns, like Mistral AI or Google Gemini, with one cybersecurity professional on LinkedIn describing the ordered chat log retention as “an unacceptable security risk.”

On X, an account with tens of thousands of followers summed up the controversy by suggesting that “Wang apparently thinks the NY Times’ boomer copyright concerns trump the privacy of EVERY @OpenAI USER—insane!!!”

The reason for the alarm is “simple,” OpenAI said. “Users feel more free to use ChatGPT when they know that they are in control of their personal information, including which conversations are retained and which are not.”

It’s unclear if OpenAI will be able to get the judge to waver if oral arguments are scheduled.

Wang previously justified the broad order partly due to the news organizations’ claim that “the volume of deleted conversations is significant.” She suggested that OpenAI could have taken steps to anonymize the chat logs but chose not to, only making an argument for why it “would not” be able to segregate data, rather than explaining why it “can’t.”

Spokespersons for OpenAI and The New York Times’ legal team declined Ars’ request to comment on the ongoing multi-district litigation.

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.

OpenAI slams court order to save all ChatGPT logs, including deleted chats Read More »

Florida ban on kids using social media likely unconstitutional, judge rules

Policy, Social Media / Kris Guyer / June 4, 2025

A federal judge ruled today that Florida cannot enforce a law that requires social media platforms to block kids from using their platforms. The state law “is likely unconstitutional,” US Judge Mark Walker of the Northern District of Florida ruled while granting the tech industry’s request for a preliminary injunction.

The Florida law “prohibits some social media platforms from allowing youth in the state who are under the age of 14 to create or hold an account on their platforms, and similarly prohibits allowing youth who are 14 or 15 to create or hold an account unless a parent or guardian provides affirmative consent for them to do so,” Walker wrote.

The law is subject to intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment, meaning it must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest,” must “leave open ample alternative channels for communication,” and must not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests,” the ruling said.

Florida claimed its law is designed to prevent harm to youth and is narrowly tailored because it targets sites that use specific features that have been deemed to be addictive. But the law applies too broadly, Walker found:

Even assuming the significance of the State’s interest in limiting the exposure of youth to websites with “addictive features,” the law’s restrictions are an extraordinarily blunt instrument for furthering it. As applied to Plaintiffs’ members alone, the law likely bans all youth under 14 from holding accounts on, at a minimum, four websites that provide forums for all manner of protected speech: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat. It also bans 14- and 15-year-olds from holding accounts on those four websites absent a parent’s affirmative consent, a requirement that the Supreme Court has clearly explained the First Amendment does not countenance.

Walker said the Florida “law applies to any social media site that employs any one of the five addictive features under any circumstances, even if, for example, the site only sends push notifications if users opt in to receiving them, or the site does not auto-play video for account holders who are known to be youth. Accordingly, even if a social media platform created youth accounts for which none of the purportedly ‘addictive’ features are available, it would still be barred from allowing youth to hold those accounts if the features were available to adult account holders.”

Florida ban on kids using social media likely unconstitutional, judge rules Read More »

Trump is forcing states to funnel grant money to Starlink, Senate Democrats say

BEAD program, Policy, trump administration / Paul Patrick / June 4, 2025

Lutnick’s announcement of the BEAD overhaul also criticized what he called the program’s “woke mandates” and “burdensome regulations.” Republicans like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have criticized a requirement for ISPs that accept subsidies to offer low-cost Internet plans to people with low incomes, though the low-cost rule was originally imposed by Congress in the law that created the BEAD program.

Letter: Projects could be delayed two years

Although Musk last week announced his departure from the government and criticized a Trump spending bill for allegedly “undermining” DOGE’s cost-cutting work, Trump still seems favorably inclined toward Starlink. Trump said in a press conference on Friday that with Starlink, Musk “saved a lot of lives, probably hundreds of lives in North Carolina,” referring to Starlink offering emergency connectivity after Hurricane Helene.

Democrats’ letter to Trump and Lutnick said that fiber and other terrestrial broadband technologies will be better than satellite both for residential connectivity and business networks that support US-based manufacturing.

“Data centers, smart warehouses, robotic assembly lines, and chip fabrication plants all depend on fast, stable, and scalable bandwidth. If we want these job-creating facilities built throughout the United States, including rural areas… we must act now—and we must build the high-speed, high-capacity networks those technologies demand,” the letter said.

Democrats also said the Trump administration’s rewrite of program rules could delay projects by two years.

“For six months, states have been waiting to break ground on scores of projects, held back only by the Commerce Department’s bureaucratic delays,” the letter said. “If states are forced to redo or rework their plans, they will not only miss this year’s construction season but next year’s as well, delaying broadband deployment by years. That’s why we urge the Administration to move swiftly to approve state plans, and release the $42 billion allocated to the states by the BEAD Program.”

Separately from BEAD, Trump said last month that he is killing a $2.75 billion broadband grant program authorized by Congress. The Digital Equity Act of 2021 allows for several types of grants benefitting low-income households, people who are at least 60 years old, people incarcerated in state or local prisons and jails, veterans, people with disabilities, people with language barriers, people who live in rural areas, and people who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group. Trump called the program “racist and illegal,” saying his administration would stop distributing Digital Equity Act grants.

Trump is forcing states to funnel grant money to Starlink, Senate Democrats say Read More »

After Supreme Court loss, ISPs ask Trump admin to block state affordability laws

broadband lobby, Policy, state broadband laws / Rejus Almole / June 1, 2025

A California bill would require $15 plans with download speeds of 100Mbps and upload speeds of 20Mbps. The broadband lobby groups’ filing said ISPs are also worried about “unnecessary anticompetitive regulations” proposed in Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia.

Not all the pending state bills are specifically about prices charged to low-income users. Some would impose net neutrality requirements or classify ISPs as utilities, the filing said.

Preempting state laws while simultaneously avoiding federal regulation has been a long-held dream for the broadband industry. During the first Trump administration, then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai led a vote to eliminate the FCC’s net neutrality rules and preempt all 50 states from passing their own net neutrality laws. But the FCC’s broad preemption attempt failed in court.

When challenging the New York affordability mandate, ISPs claimed the state law was preempted by the Pai FCC’s decision to deregulate broadband. But this argument failed for the same reason that Pai’s earlier preemption attempt failed—the FCC decision to deregulate removed the FCC’s strongest regulatory authority over broadband, and courts have ruled that the FCC cannot preempt state laws in an area that it is not regulating.

The Pai FCC’s “order stripped the agency of its authority to regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet, and a federal agency cannot exclude states from regulating in an area where the agency itself lacks regulatory authority,” the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit said in the ruling that upheld New York’s law last year.

ISPs keep making same argument

ISPs still aren’t giving up on the argument, as they hope a court might someday rule differently. The lobby groups’ filing reminded the Department of Justice that during the first Trump administration, the government brought a preemption suit against California’s net neutrality law.

“The Department unfortunately dropped out of the litigation after the change in Administration,” the filing said. “But as then-Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions explained in initiating the action, California had ‘enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate [the] federal policy’ of an unfettered market for broadband, and the Justice Department had a ‘duty to defend the prerogatives of the federal government and protect our Constitutional order.'”

After Supreme Court loss, ISPs ask Trump admin to block state affordability laws Read More »

Google Maps can’t explain why it falsely labeled German autobahns as closed

autobahns, Cars, germany, Google, google maps, GPS, Policy / Kris Guyer / June 1, 2025

Ars contacted Google to see if the glitch’s cause has been uncovered. A spokesperson remained vague, only reiterating prior statements that Google “investigated a technical issue that temporarily showed inaccurate road closures on the map” and has “since removed them.”

Apparently, Google only learned of the glitch after users who braved the supposedly closed roads started reporting the errors, prompting Google to remove incorrect stop signs one by one. Engadget reported that the glitch only lasted a couple of hours.

Google’s spokesperson told German media that the company wouldn’t comment on the specific case but noted that Google Maps draws information from three key sources: individual users, public sources (like transportation authorities), and third-party providers.

It wasn’t the first time that German drivers have encountered odd roadblocks using Google Maps. Earlier this month, Google Maps “incorrectly displayed motorway tunnels” as closed in another part of Germany, MSN reported. Now, drivers in the area are being advised to check multiple traffic news sources before making travel plans.

While Google has yet to confirm what actually happened, one regional publication noted that the German Automobile Club, Europe’s largest automobile association, had warned that there may be heavy traffic due to the holiday. Google’s glitch may have been tied to traffic forecasts rather than current traffic reports. Google also recently added artificial intelligence features to Google Maps, which could have hallucinated the false traffic jams.

This story was updated on May 30 to include comment from Google.

Google Maps can’t explain why it falsely labeled German autobahns as closed Read More »

Texas AG loses appeal to seize evidence for Elon Musk’s ad boycott fight

elon musk, media matter for America, online advertising, Policy, Twitter, twitter ad boycott, watchdog, X / Mike M. / May 31, 2025

If MMFA is made to endure Paxton’s probe, the media company could face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation of Texas’ unfair trade law, a fine or confinement if requested evidence was deleted, or other penalties for resisting sharing information. However, Edwards agreed that even the threat of the probe apparently had “adverse effects” on MMFA. Reviewing evidence, including reporters’ sworn affidavits, Edwards found that MMFA’s reporting on X was seemingly chilled by Paxton’s threat. MMFA also provided evidence that research partners had ended collaborations due to the looming probe.

Importantly, Paxton never contested claims that he retaliated against MMFA, instead seemingly hoping to dodge the lawsuit on technicalities by disputing jurisdiction and venue selection. But Edwards said that MMFA “clearly” has standing, as “they are the targeted victims of a campaign of retaliation” that is “ongoing.”

The problem with Paxton’s argument is that” it “ignores the body of law that prohibits government officials from subjecting individuals to retaliatory actions for exercising their rights of free speech,” Edwards wrote, suggesting that Paxton arguably launched a “bad-faith” probe.

Further, Edwards called out the “irony” of Paxton “readily” acknowledging in other litigation “that a state’s attempt to silence a company through the issuance and threat of compelling a response” to a civil investigative demand “harms everyone.”

With the preliminary injunction won, MMFA can move forward with its lawsuit after defeating Paxton’s motion to dismiss. In her concurring opinion, Circuit Judge Karen L. Henderson noted that MMFA may need to show more evidence that partners have ended collaborations over the probe (and not for other reasons) to ultimately clinch the win against Paxton.

Watchdog celebrates court win

In a statement provided to Ars, MMFA President and CEO Angelo Carusone celebrated the decision as a “victory for free speech.”

“Elon Musk encouraged Republican state attorneys general to use their power to harass their critics and stifle reporting about X,” Carusone said. “Ken Paxton was one of those AGs who took up the call, and his attempt to use his office as an instrument for Musk’s censorship crusade has been defeated.”

MMFA continues to fight against X over the same claims—as well as a recently launched Federal Trade Commission probe—but Carusone said the media company is “buoyed that yet another court has seen through the fog of Musk’s ‘thermonuclear’ legal onslaught and recognized it for the meritless attack to silence a critic that it is,” Carusone said.

Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Texas AG loses appeal to seize evidence for Elon Musk’s ad boycott fight Read More »

Elon Musk counts the cost of his four-month blitz through US government

doge, elon musk, Policy, spacex, syndication, Tesla / Rejus Almole / May 30, 2025

Term at DOGE did serious damage to his brands, only achieved a fraction of hoped-for savings.

Elon Musk wields a chainsaw at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February to illustrate his aim to cut government waste Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP

Elon Musk’s four-month blitz through the US government briefly made him Washington’s most powerful businessman since the Gilded Age. But it has done little for his reputation or that of his companies.

Musk this week formally abandoned his role as the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which has failed to find even a fraction of the $2 trillion in savings he originally pledged.

On Thursday, Donald Trump lamented his departure but said Musk “will always be with us, helping all the way.”

Yet the billionaire will be left calculating the cost of his involvement with Trump and the meagre return on his $250 million investment in the US president’s election campaign.

“I appreciate the fact that Mr Musk put what was good for the country ahead of what was good for his own bottom line,” Tom Cole, the Republican chair of the House Appropriations Committee, told the Financial Times.

After Doge was announced, a majority of American voters believed Musk would use the body to “enrich himself and undermine his business rivals,” according to a survey, instead of streamlining the government.

Progressive groups warned that he would be “rigging federal procurement for billionaires and their pals” and cut regulations that govern his companies Tesla and SpaceX. Democratic lawmakers said Doge was a “cover-up” of a more sinister, self-serving exercise by the world’s richest person.

Early moves by the Trump administration suggested Musk might get value for money. A lawsuit brought by the Biden administration against SpaceX over its hiring practices was dropped in February, and regulators probing his brain-implant company Neuralink were dismissed.

Musk’s satellite Internet business Starlink was touted by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as a potential beneficiary of a $42 billion rural broadband scheme. An executive order calling for the establishment of a multibillion-dollar Iron Dome defense system in the US looked set to benefit Musk, due to SpaceX’s dominance in rocket launches.

The gutting of various watchdogs across government also benefited Musk’s businesses, while a number of large US companies rushed to ink deals with Starlink or increase their advertising spending on X. Starlink also signed agreements to operate in India, Pakistan, and Vietnam, among other countries it has long wished to expand into.

But while Doge took a scythe to various causes loathed by Musk, most notably international aid spending and government contracts purportedly linked to diversity initiatives or “woke” research, it also caused severe blowback to the billionaire’s businesses, particularly Tesla.

At one point during his Doge tenure, Tesla’s stock had fallen 45 percent from its highest point last year, and reports emerged that the company’s board of directors had sought to replace Musk as chief executive. The 53-year-old’s personal wealth dropped by tens of billions of dollars, while his dealerships were torched and death threats poured in.

Some of the brand damage to Tesla, until recently Musk’s primary source of wealth, could be permanent. “Eighty percent of Teslas in the US were sold in blue zip codes,” a former senior employee said. “Obviously that constituency has been deeply offended.”

Starlink lost lucrative contracts in Canada and Mexico due to Musk’s political activities, while X lost 11 million users in Europe alone.

Probes of Tesla and SpaceX by government regulators also continued apace, while the Trump administration pressed ahead with plans to abolish tax credits for electric vehicles and waged a trade war vehemently opposed by Musk that threatened to further damage car sales.

In the political arena, few people were cheered by Doge’s work. Democrats were outraged by the gutting of foreign aid and by Musk’s 20-something acolytes gaining access to the Treasury’s payment system, along with the ousting of thousands of federal workers. Republicans looked askance at attempts to target defense spending. And true budget hawks were bitter that Musk could only cut a few billion dollars. Bill Gates even accused Musk of “killing the world’s poorest children” through his actions at Doge.

Musk, so used to getting his way at his businesses, struggled for control. At various points in his tenure he took on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transport Secretary Sean Duffy, and trade tsar Peter Navarro, while clashing with several other senior officials.

Far from being laser-focused on eliminating waste, Musk’s foray into government was a “revenge tour” against a bureaucracy the billionaire had come to see as the enemy of innovation, a former senior colleague of Musk’s said, highlighting the entrepreneur’s frustration with COVID-19 regulations in California, his perceived snub by the Biden administration, and his anger over his daughter’s gender transition.

Trump’s AI and crypto tsar, David Sacks, an influential political voice in the tech world, “whipped [Musk] up into a very, very far-right kind of mindset,” the person added, to the extent that was “going to help this administration in crushing the ‘woke’ agenda.”

Neither Musk nor Sacks responded to requests for comment.

Musk, who claimed Doge only acted in an “advisory role,” this week expressed frustration at it being used as a “whipping boy” for unpopular cuts decided by the White House and cabinet secretaries.

“Trump, I think, was very savvy and allowed Doge to kind of take all those headlines for a traditional political scapegoat,” said Sahil Lavingia, head of a commerce start-up who worked for Doge until earlier this month. Musk, he added, might also have been keen to take credit for the gutting of USAID and other moves but ultimately garnered unwanted attention.

“If you were truly evil, [you] would just be more quiet,” said Lavingia, who joined the initiative in order to streamline processes within government. “You would do the evil stuff quietly.”

The noise surrounding Musk, whose ability to dominate news cycles with a single post on his social media site X rivaled Trump’s own hold on the headlines, also frustrated the administration.

This week, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller took to X to indirectly rebut the billionaire’s criticism of Trump’s signature tax bill, which he had lambasted for failing to cut the deficit or codify Doge’s cuts.

Once almost synonymous with Musk, Doge is now being melded into the rest of government. In a briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that following Musk’s departure, cabinet secretaries would “continue to work with the respective Doge employees who have onboarded as political appointees at all of these agencies.”

She added: “The Doge leaders are each and every member of the President’s Cabinet and the President himself.”

Doge’s aims have also become decidedly more quotidian. Tom Krause, a Musk ally who joined Doge and was installed at Treasury, briefed congressional staff this week on improvements to the IRS’s application program interfaces and customer service, according to a person familiar with the matter. Other Doge staffers are doing audits of IT contracts—work Lavingia compares with that done by McKinsey consultants.

Freed from the constraints of being a government employee, Musk is increasingly threatening to become a thorn in Trump’s side.

Soon after his Doge departure was announced, he again criticized the White House, this time over its plan to cancel clean energy tax credits.

“Teddy Roosevelt had that great adage: ‘speak softly but carry a big stick’,” Fred Thiel, the chief executive of Bitcoin mining company MARA Holdings, told the FT. “Maybe Elon’s approach was a little bit different.”

Elon Musk counts the cost of his four-month blitz through US government Read More »

Man who stole 1,000 DVDs from employer strikes plea deal over movie leaks

anti-piracy, Blu-ray, copyright infringement, dvd rip, piracy, Policy, spiderman / Paul Patrick / May 30, 2025

An accused movie pirate who stole more than 1,000 Blu-ray discs and DVDs while working for a DVD manufacturing company struck a plea deal this week to lower his sentence after the FBI claimed the man’s piracy cost movie studios millions.

Steven Hale no longer works for the DVD company. He was arrested in March, accused of “bypassing encryption that prevents unauthorized copying” and ripping pre-release copies of movies he could only access because his former employer was used by major movie studios. As alleged by the feds, his game was beating studios to releases to achieve the greatest possible financial gains from online leaks.

Among the popular movies that Hale is believed to have leaked between 2021 and 2022 was Spider-Man: No Way Home, which the FBI alleged was copied “tens of millions of times” at an estimated loss of “tens of millions of dollars” for just one studio on one movie. Other movies Hale ripped included animated hits like Encanto and Sing 2, as well as anticipated sequels like The Matrix: Resurrections and Venom: Let There Be Carnage.

The cops first caught wind of Hale’s scheme in March 2022. They seized about 1,160 Blu-rays and DVDs in what TorrentFreak noted were the days just “after the Spider-Man movie leaked online.” It’s unclear why it took close to three years before Hale’s arrest, but TorrentFreak suggested that Hale’s case is perhaps part of a bigger investigation into the Spider-Man leaks.

Man who stole 1,000 DVDs from employer strikes plea deal over movie leaks Read More »

Trump bans sales of chip design software to China

AI, china, ftc, Policy, syndication, Trump / Paul Patrick / May 29, 2025

Johnson, who heads China Strategies Group, a risk consultancy, said that China had successfully leveraged its stranglehold on rare earths to bring the US to the negotiating table in Geneva, which “left the Trump administration’s China hawks eager to demonstrate their export control weapons still have purchase.”

While it accounts for a relatively small share of the overall semiconductor industry, EDA software allows chip designers and manufacturers to develop and test the next generation of chips, making it a critical part in the supply chain.

Synopsys, Cadence Design Systems, and Siemens EDA—part of Siemens Digital Industries Software, a subsidiary of Germany’s Siemens AG—account for about 80 percent of China’s EDA market. Synopsys and Cadence did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In fiscal year 2024, Synopsys reported almost $1 billion in China sales, roughly 16 percent of its revenue. Cadence said China accounted for $550 million or 12 percent of its revenue.

Synopsys shares fell 9.6 percent on Wednesday, while those of Cadence lost 10.7 percent.

Siemens said in a statement the EDA industry had been informed last Friday about new export controls. It said it had supported customers in China “for more than 150 years” and would “continue to work with our customers globally to mitigate the impact of these new restrictions while operating in compliance with applicable national export control regimes.”

In 2022, the Biden administration introduced restrictions on sales of the most sophisticated chip design software to China, but the companies continued to sell export control-compliant products to the country.

In his first term as president, Donald Trump banned China’s Huawei from using American EDA tools. Huawei is seen as an emerging competitor to Nvidia with its “Ascend” AI chips.

Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang recently warned that successive attempts by American administrations to hamstring China’s AI ecosystem with export controls had failed.

Last year Synopsys entered into an agreement to buy Ansys, a US simulation software company, for $35 billion. The deal still requires approval from Chinese regulators. Ansys shares fell 5.3 percent on Wednesday.

On Wednesday the US Federal Trade Commission announced that both companies would need to divest certain software tools to receive its approval for the deal.

The export restrictions have encouraged Chinese competitors, with three leading EDA companies—Empyrean Technology, Primarius, and Semitronix—significantly growing their market share in recent years.

Shares of Empyrean, Primarius, and Semitronix rose more than 10 percent in early trading in China on Thursday.

Trump bans sales of chip design software to China Read More »

It’s too expensive to fight every AI copyright battle, Getty CEO says

AI, Artificial Intelligence, copyright, fair use, generative ai, Getty Images, image generators, Policy, Stability AI, Stable Diffusion / Tim Belzer / May 29, 2025

Getty dumped “millions and millions” into just one AI copyright fight, CEO says.

In some ways, Getty Images has emerged as one of the most steadfast defenders of artists’ rights in AI copyright fights. Starting in 2022, when some of the most sophisticated image generators today first started testing new models offering better compositions, Getty banned AI-generated uploads to its service. And by the next year, Getty released a “socially responsible” image generator to prove it was possible to build a tool while rewarding artists, while suing an AI firm that refused to pay artists.

But in the years since, Getty Images CEO Craig Peters recently told CNBC that the media company has discovered that it’s simply way too expensive to fight every AI copyright battle.

According to Peters, Getty has dumped millions into just one copyright fight against Stability AI.

It’s “extraordinarily expensive,” Peters told CNBC. “Even for a company like Getty Images, we can’t pursue all the infringements that happen in one week.” He confirmed that “we can’t pursue it because the courts are just prohibitively expensive. We are spending millions and millions of dollars in one court case.”

Fair use?

Getty sued Stability AI in 2023, after the AI company’s image generator, Stable Diffusion, started spitting out images that replicated Getty’s famous trademark. In the complaint, Getty alleged that Stability AI had trained Stable Diffusion on “more than 12 million photographs from Getty Images’ collection, along with the associated captions and metadata, without permission from or compensation to Getty Images, as part of its efforts to build a competing business.”

As Getty saw it, Stability AI had plenty of opportunity to license the images from Getty and seemingly “chose to ignore viable licensing options and long-standing legal protections in pursuit of their stand-alone commercial interests.”

Stability AI, like all AI firms, has argued that AI training based on freely scraping images from the web is a “fair use” protected under copyright law.

So far, courts have not settled this debate, while many AI companies have urged judges and governments globally to settle it for the courts, for the sake of safeguarding national security and securing economic prosperity by winning the AI race. According to AI companies, paying artists to train on their works threatens to slow innovation, while rivals in China—who aren’t bound by US copyright law—continue scraping the web to advance their models.

Peters called out Stability AI for adopting this stance, arguing that rightsholders shouldn’t have to spend millions fighting against a claim that paying out licensing fees would “kill innovation.” Some critics have likened AI firms’ argument to a defense of forced labor, suggesting the US would never value “innovation” about human rights, and the same logic should follow for artists’ rights.

“We’re battling a world of rhetoric,” Peters said, alleging that these firms “are taking copyrighted material to develop their powerful AI models under the guise of innovation and then ‘just turning those services right back on existing commercial markets.'”

To Peters, that’s simply “disruption under the notion of ‘move fast and break things,’” and Getty believes “that’s unfair competition.”

“We’re not against competition,” Peters said. “There’s constant new competition coming in all the time from new technologies or just new companies. But that [AI scraping] is just unfair competition, that’s theft.”

Broader Internet backlash over AI firms’ rhetoric

Peters’ comments come after a former Meta head of global affairs, Nick Clegg, received Internet backlash this week after making the same claim that AI firms raise time and again: that asking artists for consent for AI training would “kill” the AI industry, The Verge reported.

According to Clegg, the only viable solution to the tension between artists and AI companies would be to give artists ways to opt out of training, which Stability AI notably started doing in 2022.

“Quite a lot of voices say, ‘You can only train on my content, [if you] first ask,'” Clegg reportedly said. “And I have to say that strikes me as somewhat implausible because these systems train on vast amounts of data.”

On X, the CEO of Fairly Trained—a nonprofit that supports artists’ fight against nonconsensual AI training—Ed Newton-Rex (who is also a former Stability AI vice president of audio) pushed back on Clegg’s claim in a post viewed by thousands.

“Nick Clegg is wrong to say artists’ demands on AI & copyright are unworkable,” Newton-Rex said. “Every argument he makes could equally have been made about Napster:” First, that “the tech is out there,” second that “licensing takes time,” and third that, “we can’t control what other countries do.” If Napster’s operations weren’t legal, neither should AI firms’ training, Newton-Rex said, writing, “These are not reasons not to uphold the law and treat creators fairly.”

Other social media users mocked Clegg with jokes meant to destroy AI firms’ favorite go-to argument against copyright claims.

“Blackbeard says asking sailors for permission to board and loot their ships would ‘kill’ the piracy on the high seas industry,” an X user with the handle “Seanchuckle” wrote.

On Bluesky, a trial lawyer, Max Kennerly, effectively satirized Clegg and the whole AI industry by writing, “Our product creates such little value that it is simply not viable in the marketplace, not even as a niche product. Therefore, we must be allowed to unilaterally extract value from the work of others and convert that value into our profits.”

Other ways to fight

Getty plans to continue fighting against the AI firms that are impressing this “world of rhetoric” on judges and lawmakers, but court battles will likely remain few and far between due to the price tag, Peters has suggested.

There are other ways to fight, though. In a submission last month, Getty pushed the Trump administration to reject “those seeking to weaken US copyright protections by creating a ‘right to learn’ exemption” for AI firms when building Trump’s AI Action Plan.

“US copyright laws are not obstructing the path to continued AI progress,” Getty wrote. “Instead, US copyright laws are a path to sustainable AI and a path that broadens society’s participation in AI’s economic benefits, which reduces downstream economic burdens on the Federal, State and local governments. US copyright laws provide incentives to invest and create.”

In Getty’s submission, the media company emphasized that requiring consent for AI training is not an “overly restrictive” control on AI’s development such as those sought by stauncher critics “that could harm US competitiveness, national security or societal advances such as curing cancer.” And Getty claimed it also wasn’t “requesting protection from existing and new sources of competition,” despite the lawsuit’s suggestion that Stability AI and other image generators threaten to replace Getty’s image library in the market.

What Getty said it hopes Trump’s AI plan will ensure is a world where the rights and opportunities of rightsholders are not “usurped for the commercial benefits” of AI companies.

In 2023, when Getty was first suing Stability AI, Peters suggested that, otherwise, allowing AI firms to widely avoid paying artists would create “a sad world,” perhaps disincentivizing creativity.

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.

It’s too expensive to fight every AI copyright battle, Getty CEO says Read More »

Trump admin tells SCOTUS: ISPs shouldn’t be forced to boot alleged pirates

Cox, Policy, Sony / Kris Guyer / May 29, 2025

Enhanced damages can be $150,000 per work, instead of the usual cap of $30,000. The jury in the case “was instructed that it could find Cox’s violations willful if Cox knew that its subscribers had committed infringement,” Sauer wrote. “That instruction was mistaken because it allowed the jury to award enhanced damages even if Cox reasonably believed that its own conduct in declining to terminate infringing subscribers’ Internet access was consistent with the Copyright Act.”

Reject Sony petition, US says

Sony wasn’t happy with the 4th Circuit ruling, either, because it threw out the $1 billion award and a finding of vicarious infringement. Sony argued that Cox profited from infringement by failing to terminate infringing subscribers and that the ruling “eliminates an especially important tool in the digital age where pursuing direct infringers—in this case, thousands of faceless individuals who cannot be identified except through an Internet service provider like Respondent—is impractical at best and impossible at worst.”

Sauer urged the Supreme Court to reject Sony’s petition for a review. “The court of appeals correctly held that Sony had not satisfied its burden of showing that Cox financially benefited from infringement on its network. As the court explained, Cox charges its customers a flat fee for Internet service, regardless of what its users do online,” Sauer wrote.

Sauer compared Cox to a landlord who charges a fixed rent regardless of what tenants use the leased premises for. “There was no evidence that Cox would be forced to collect a lower fee if the users of its Internet service ceased to infringe; that subscribers were drawn to Cox’s Internet service because of the ability to engage in copyright infringement using that service; or that Cox had used the opportunity for customers to infringe to lend credibility to the service it offered,” Sauer wrote.

On the vicarious liability question, “there is no conflict among the circuits, which all apply the same financial-benefit requirement to different fact patterns,” Sauer wrote. “Sony has not identified any court of appeals decision that reached a different result on facts similar to those here.”

Cox issued a statement welcoming the US court brief. “We are pleased the solicitor general agrees the Supreme Court should review this significant copyright case that could jeopardize Internet access for all Americans and fundamentally change how Internet service providers manage their networks,” Cox said.

Trump admin tells SCOTUS: ISPs shouldn’t be forced to boot alleged pirates Read More »

Judge lets four more DOGE employees access US Treasury payment systems

doge, Policy / Paul Patrick / May 29, 2025

A federal judge has given Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employees access to US Treasury payment systems as long as they meet training and vetting requirements but denied the Trump administration’s motion to completely dissolve a preliminary injunction.

US District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York is overseeing a case filed against President Trump by 19 states led by New York. In February, Vargas issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Treasury Department from granting DOGE access to systems containing personally identifiable information or confidential financial information.

In April, Vargas allowed DOGE employee Ryan Wunderly to access the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) system, after government declarations said “that Wunderly has undergone the same vetting and security clearance process that applies to any other Treasury Department employee provided with access to BFS payment systems.” In an order yesterday, Vargas ruled that four more employees can access the system.

“The issue before the Court is a narrow one. The parties are in agreement that, in light of this Court’s PI [Preliminary Injunction] Modification Order, the New DOGE Employees should be permitted to have access to BFS payment systems on the same terms as Wunderly,” Vargas wrote. “Treasury DOGE Team” employees Thomas Krause, Linda Whitridge, Samuel Corcos, and Todd Newnam have satisfied the conditions for accessing the system, she wrote.

Court won’t vet new hires

Additionally, the Trump administration can add more DOGE team members without the court’s prior approval. Saying that “there is little utility in having this Court function as Treasury’s de facto human resources officer each time a new team member is onboarded,” Varagas said the injunction’s restrictions won’t apply to staff who have met the requirements.

Judge lets four more DOGE employees access US Treasury payment systems Read More »