the fourth link sucked too publicknowledge.org/celebs-the…

Liability for platforms and services is also a mess. No AI FRAUD explicitly targets what it calls “AI cloning technology,” and makes it an offense merely to offer this technology in interstate commerce. This is unworkable for a whole number of reasons (not least of which is that it would ban things like Apple’s accessibility-focused voice cloning tool, and most existing movie CGI technology).

(1) "accessibility-focused" is the corporate marketing line. it's not the kind of language the EFF should be adopting. you'll note "accessibility-focused" does not actually promise any functionality and seems very likely to have been specifically created in order to be legally challenged, much like the IA's CDL program.

(2) claiming that a new law would outlaw most existing movie CGI technology is a pretty wild claim without any citation or followup, especially when it's directly paired with "oh and also this specific new device that an 'AI' company is marketing". especially when the link for the "AI" tool is quite literally a link to a marketing story for it.

why am i reading links to marketing for "AI" tools from a team of lawyers whose legal opinions just so happen to perfectly align with corporate boardrooms?

i was hoping that by "smoke filled rooms" you were referring to literally anything specific at all but i was denied this too eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/dont…

(emphasis mine)

In the internet age, that approach is unworkable. Every use of the internet, whether sending a photo, reading a social media post, or working on a shared document, causes a copy of some creative work.

a "copy"--this is INCREDIBLY blatant. you know for a damn fact you are deceiving people here by using copy as informal terminology, when of course everyone would assume you're referring to the legal term copyright, given the substance of the post and your organization's well-known work on copyright law. from wikipedia:

The copyright owner must also establish both (a) actual copying and (b) improper appropriation of the work.

i do not believe the copyright owner of every single photo, social media post, or shared document has established (a) actual copying and (b) improper appropriation of the work for "every use of the internet". you know this for a god damn fact and yet you are deceiving people and taking advantage of their trust in you!

i wanted to note this part of the quote too:

And nearly every creative work that’s recorded on a computing device is automatically governed by copyright law, with no registration or copyright notices required.

this comparison is outrageous--literally every creative work is "automatically governed by copyright law". from wikipedia:

The United States copyright law protects "original works of authorship" fixed in a tangible medium,[1] including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works.

there are literally fascists installing an even more unaccountable surveillance regime on top of the already unaccountable surveillance regime we already had right now and you're making up fairy tales about the government backdooring copyright into your phones by playing word games with an audience who trusts you not to deceive them.