Two articles I saw today prompted this post:
- from Ars Technica a look at the issues surrounding the class action lawsuit that was launched against Anthropic AI, and the training done for its models on copyrighted works. And
- from the Columbus (OH) Dispatch - electric car manufacturer Rivian is suing the state of Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles over a law that prevents it from selling its vehicles directly to consumers.
Seemingly unrelated legal news, until you take a step back and look at the overarching issues being discussed. Both suits involve distributive technologies and the impact on the way business has been conducted.
The Anthropic AI suit has implications on how AI companies train their models: do they have the right to use copyright works to do so and how they obtain those works. A recent court ruling said Anthropic has the right under fair use because the end result is transformative. However, the court took issue with how the company obtained those works. Legally purchased copies the judge ruled are OK to be used, but it appears that some of the works used may have been pirated. That issue is proceeding to trial along with whether the suit can be certified as a class action lawsuit. Many tech companies have expressed concern that allowing a class action could potentially bankrupt the AI industry.
Rivian's suit against the Ohio BMV centers around a long established legal practice of disallowing direct sales of automobiles to consumers and an exception that was made to grandfather in Tesla before a new law was passed in 2014.
In most states, franchised dealerships partner with the automakers to have the right to sell their cars in a certain area. Those dealerships are regulated at a state level, and complaints can be investigated by the state. The National Automobile Dealers Association maintains the current system benefits all parties is the car purchase process. Rivian, and before them Tesla, have taken exception to that view, and have filed suits in several states to allow them to sell directly to consumers.
So what does all that mean? Essentially my position is that most newer technology is likely to be disruptive and challenge the way people have done business in the past. Much as the automobile industry disrupted horse and buggy sales a century ago, modern tech continues to upend the older established ways. The US Postal Service continues to increase rates and lose business as the Internet has circumvented the delivery of correspondence. The landscape of America that used to be dotted with shopping malls (four in the town I grew up in with a population of less than 500,000) has seen them repurposed, shuttered or demolished over the past two decades as online shopping has taken over.
We are in a very disruptive period now with the rapid evolution of so many different technologies. Will we continue to put roadblocks up to prevent advancement, or will we find a way to work with it and improve the processes and industries that already exist so they can continue?
From past experience, trying to disallow or kneecap the technology because it threatens the existing money paradigm will only work for so long. Ultimately the consumers will force the issue.
BTW - The header image is from Adobe Firefly - an AI Image Generator. :)
Comments
Post a Comment