Works too.

“SI” = “Stolen Intelligence”

So… proposed final remedies in U.S. v. Google - for its illegal adtech monopolies and conduct that harmed publishers - quietly posted Friday. That’s what happens when you file over a weekend! DOJ = green; Google = peach. Suffice to say, Google is still fighting every word. More eyes the better. 1/2

good report on bad news here, Penske v. Google dismissal. I don't often get entire last section of a report but enough already, something must be done. An illegal monopolist is destroying the open web...putting it into what a Microsoft executive called the 'doom loop.' 1/3

A key component of the Cambridge Analytica outrage was your friends subjecting you to data theft without your consent or knowledge. Facebook is running the same playbook on your text messages. Even if you’re not on Meta properties, they’re ingesting your interactions.

The remedies in the Google ad tech case "stopped well short of actually preventing future abuses of monopoly power," writes Public Knowledge senior policy advocate Patrick Gallaher, who argues the ruling shows the need for the bipartisan AMERICA Act.

"The funds to pay copyright owners for their content are readily available to all of these companies." /9

DOJ said paying copyright owners could threaten AI competition. Absurd. NYT answers politely: these are among the largest companies in the world spending billions (on compute, data centers, chips and electricity). The funds are available. Duh (my word). /8

NYT asks the question DOJ avoids: if this policy decimates newsrooms, who reports the news? Are we going to trust generative AI companies to hire their own internal news corps and consolidate control over information? ahem, doom loop. /7

The US Copyright Office also concluded copying expressive works to generate unrestricted competing content, where licensing is reasonably available, is unlikely to qualify as fair use. That is part of the market harm question. Judge Chhabria noted it, too, despite spin on it. /6

The Copyright Office already rejected the claim that "to train AI models is inherently transformative [simply] because it is not for expressive purposes." Its words: "We view this argument as mistaken." Ahem, that totally undercuts DOJ’s core argument. /5

DOJ’s "fair use analysis" conflicts directly with *our own US Copyright Office*. DOJ says AI training is "extraordinarily transformative." The Copyright Office closely examined the facts and reached the opposite conclusion on the key questions. /4