[ad_1]
What appeared to be a power play by Elon Musk and the government’s Department of Efficiency (DOGE) to take over the US Copyright Office by removing the person in charge to Donald Trump, regained the economy in an epic way as it is known that Trump’s acting alternatives are unknown to the tech industry.
When Trump fired Congressional Carla Hayden’s librarian last week and registered Silla Permater’s copyright over the weekend, it was seen as another move driven by the Republican technical forces – especially in light of copyright offices that say that some kind of AI training is not considered fair use, and when two men appeared at the Copyright Office within the Library of Congress, Doge Takeover appeared to be perfect.
But these two men, Paul Perkins and Brian Neeves, were approved not by Doge but by the Trump Union’s Magazine Wing, which instead aims to keep tech companies down.
Now believed to be a copyright acting registry, Perkins is an eight-year veteran of DOJ who served in the first Trump administration to indict fraud cases. Nieves, a putative librarian, is currently in the office of the Associate Attorney General, who was currently an attorney for the House Judiciary Committee. And Todd Blanche, the putative acting librarian in Congress who will become their boss, was a solid Trump alliance who represented him at the 2024 Manhattan Criminal Trial, and is now the deputy attorney general who oversees the side of the DOJ. Google Search Remedies Case. Like a government issue, the lobbyist said BargeBlanche says, “stick it into high-tech.”
The appointments of Blanche, Perkins and Neeb are the result of a fierce lobbying effort by the conservative content industry over the weekend. Like other media companies, they jealously protect copyrighted works, which infuriated populist Republican lawmakers and lawyers that Silicon Valley recently attacked Trump to monitor Trump in criticism.
Source of speaking Barge I’m sure the firing is a power play for the high-tech industry led by Elon Musk and David Sachs.
Populists were particularly ranked for the removal of Perlmutter from the helm of the Copyright Bureau, which took place the day after the agency was released. Prepublished version Generated reports on the use of copyrighted materials in training AI systems. Source of speaking Barge We believe the firing is a power play for the tech industry led by Elon Musk and “White House AI & Crypto Czar” David Sacks.
“You can say, Well, we have to compete with China. No, you don’t have to steal content to compete with China. There is no slave labor competing with China. This is a bullshit debate,” said Mike Davis, president of the Article III project and Trump’s leading anti-trust visor. Barge. “Under copyright law, taking everyone’s content and monetizing it to a large tech platform is not a fair use. It’s the opposite of fair use. It’s copyright infringement.”
It is a rare time that the Magazine world has roundly denounced Hayden and Permaterter’s firing and agreed with Democrats, who have focused on the Musk Sachs faction as instigators.
In a press release, Rep. Joe Morell (D-NY) characterized over 100 page reports, the third in a series in which the Office “denies” copyright and artificial intelligence.[ing] In rubber stamps, Elon Musk’s efforts to mine most of the copyrighted works to train AI models. Meanwhile, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) said. Barge “This all looks like another way to repay Elon Musk and other AI billionaires who supported the Trump campaign,” he said in an emailed statement that the president was not capable of firing either Hayden or Permatter.
Interpreting something that is fair or not fair has no binding power in the courts.
Publications like AI Reports essentially laid out how the Copyright Office interprets copyright law. However, such reports serve primarily as expert commentary and reference material, as the agency’s interpretation of whether it is a fair use or not has no binding power in the courts. However, the entire AI industry is built on the vast interpretation of copyright laws currently being tested in courts.
The AI ​​report applies fair use to different types of AI training and usage, with results that may vary from case to case, but concludes that “it crosses the boundaries of fair use, especially when achieved through illegal access, to commercially use the vast competition of copyrighted works to generate competing phenotypic content in existing markets.” However, it is far from advising dramatic actions in response to the firm’s view of copyright infringement as ramps, with the report instead saying “government intervention is premature at this time.”
“Now, Tech Brothers intends to steal the copyright of creators for the benefit of AI.”
Due to the non-violation nature of the report, the removal of Perlmutter was even more wary of Trump’s inner circle Magai Deologue. “Currently, Tech Bros is stealing the copyright of creators for the benefit of AI,” Davis quickly posted on Truth Social. “This is 100% unacceptable.”
Strangely enough, shortly after Davis published the post, Trump reposted it and linked it.
None of the Trump appointees have a background particularly relevant to their new job, but they certainly aren’t the people of Doge, and generally speaking, those that AI advocates want in their offices. And for now, this counts as a political victory for anti-technical populists, even if nothing more happens. “Sometimes, when you make a pitch into leadership to get rid of someone, the people who come afterwards aren’t that good,” said a source familiar with the dynamics between the White House and both sides of copyright issues. “We often see people being pushed out the door because we don’t necessarily name a successor and fire someone.
However, the speed of the firing and subsequent power struggles underline the brewing constitutional crisis caused by the frequent firing of independent officials confirmed by Congress. In particular, the termination of the Library of Congress reaches even more intense territory, far beyond the administrative theory argued by the White House. It is legally doubtful whether Congressional librarians can remove the president by the president. It doesn’t fit properly In the modern legal framework of federal agencies. (Of course, everything about the law is changing dramatically even with institutions. do Fits the framework. )No matter The law clearly states A librarian of Congress, not the president, appoints copyright registration.
At this time, the Library of Congress has not received instructions from Congress on how to move forward. The constitutional crisis – one of many in the entire federal government – is ongoing.
Elon Musk and Xai did not respond to requests for comment.
Additional report by Sarah John.