#AI Legal Automation

[ailifehacks]

AI Legal Automation : Smarter Contract Drafting & Case Analysis

Explore how AI legal automation is transforming contract drafting and case analysis, enhancing efficiency for legal professionals in the USA and Europe. In today’s rapidly evolving legal landscape, AI legal automation is revolutionizing how contracts are drafted and cases are analyzed. Legal professionals across the USA, UK, and Europe are leveraging AI to streamline processes, reduce errors,…

[chicbitter]

AI meeting note taker How to Boost Productivity Effortlessly 🚀

AI meeting note taker tools for effortless productivity Introduction to AI meeting note taker tools Real-World Business Case Study: Zoom Comparison of Top AI Meeting Note Taker Tools Key Data Insights on AI Meeting Note Takers 5 Key Takeaways Frequently Asked Questions Conclusion AI meeting note taker tools have rapidly become essential for teams and professionals aiming to boost efficiency…

[mylegalsoftwareblog]

AI Solutions for Small Law Firms

Discover how artificial intelligence is transforming small law firms by enhancing productivity, automating tasks, and reducing overhead. Learn how your legal practice can adopt AI-powered tools to improve efficiency and compete with larger firms. Explore practical strategies in this guide by My Legal Software.

Read more: https://mylegalsoftware.com/ai-for-small-law-firms/

[byepaper]

Best Legal Workflow Automation Software - Byepaper

Cut manual work with Byepaper’s AI legal workflow solution. Automate case management, document review, and compliance—giving law firms speed, accuracy, and control over their legal operations.

[catchexperts]

Web Scraping 101: Everything You Need to Know in 2025

🕸️ What Is Web Scraping? An Introduction

Web scraping—also referred to as web data extraction—is the process of collecting structured information from websites using automated scripts or tools. Initially driven by simple scripts, it has now evolved into a core component of modern data strategies for competitive research, price monitoring, SEO, market intelligence, and more.

If you’re wondering “What is the introduction of web scraping?” — it’s this: the ability to turn unstructured web content into organized datasets businesses can use to make smarter, faster decisions.

💡 What Is Web Scraping Used For?

Businesses and developers alike use web scraping to:

Monitor competitors’ pricing and SEO rankings

Extract leads from directories or online marketplaces

Track product listings, reviews, and inventory

Aggregate news, blogs, and social content for trend analysis

Fuel AI models with large datasets from the open web

Whether it’s web scraping using Python, browser-based tools, or cloud APIs, the use cases are growing fast across marketing, research, and automation.

🔍 Examples of Web Scraping in Action

What is an example of web scraping?

A real estate firm scrapes listing data (price, location, features) from property websites to build a market dashboard.

An eCommerce brand scrapes competitor prices daily to adjust its own pricing in real time.

A SaaS company uses BeautifulSoup in Python to extract product reviews and social proof for sentiment analysis.

For many, web scraping is the first step in automating decision-making and building data pipelines for BI platforms.

⚖️ Is Web Scraping Legal?

Yes—if done ethically and responsibly. While scraping public data is legal in many jurisdictions, scraping private, gated, or copyrighted content can lead to violations.

To stay compliant:

Respect robots.txt rules

Avoid scraping personal or sensitive data

Prefer API access where possible

Follow website terms of service

If you’re wondering “Is web scraping legal?”—the answer lies in how you scrape and what you scrape.

🧠 Web Scraping with Python: Tools & Libraries

What is web scraping in Python? Python is the most popular language for scraping because of its ease of use and strong ecosystem.

Popular Python libraries for web scraping include:

BeautifulSoup – simple and effective for HTML parsing

Requests – handles HTTP requests

Selenium – ideal for dynamic JavaScript-heavy pages

Scrapy – robust framework for large-scale scraping projects

Puppeteer (via Node.js) – for advanced browser emulation

These tools are often used in tutorials like “Web scraping using Python BeautifulSoup” or “Python web scraping library for beginners.”

⚙️ DIY vs. Managed Web Scraping

You can choose between:

DIY scraping: Full control, requires dev resources

Managed scraping: Outsourced to experts, ideal for scale or non-technical teams

Use managed scraping services for large-scale needs, or build Python-based scrapers for targeted projects using frameworks and libraries mentioned above.

🚧 Challenges in Web Scraping (and How to Overcome Them)

Modern websites often include:

JavaScript rendering

CAPTCHA protection

Rate limiting and dynamic loading

To solve this:

Use rotating proxies

Implement headless browsers like Selenium

Leverage AI-powered scraping for content variation and structure detection

Deploy scrapers on cloud platforms using containers (e.g., Docker + AWS)

🔐 Ethical and Legal Best Practices

Scraping must balance business innovation with user privacy and legal integrity. Ethical scraping includes:

Minimal server load

Clear attribution

Honoring opt-out mechanisms

This ensures long-term scalability and compliance for enterprise-grade web scraping systems.

🔮 The Future of Web Scraping

As demand for real-time analytics and AI training data grows, scraping is becoming:

Smarter (AI-enhanced)

Faster (real-time extraction)

Scalable (cloud-native deployments)

From developers using BeautifulSoup or Scrapy, to businesses leveraging API-fed dashboards, web scraping is central to turning online information into strategic insights.

📘 Summary: Web Scraping 101 in 2025

Web scraping in 2025 is the automated collection of website data, widely used for SEO monitoring, price tracking, lead generation, and competitive research. It relies on powerful tools like BeautifulSoup, Selenium, and Scrapy, especially within Python environments. While scraping publicly available data is generally legal, it's crucial to follow website terms of service and ethical guidelines to avoid compliance issues. Despite challenges like dynamic content and anti-scraping defenses, the use of AI and cloud-based infrastructure is making web scraping smarter, faster, and more scalable than ever—transforming it into a cornerstone of modern data strategies.

🔗 Want to Build or Scale Your AI-Powered Scraping Strategy?

Whether you're exploring AI-driven tools, training models on web data, or integrating smart automation into your data workflows—AI is transforming how web scraping works at scale.

👉 Find AI Agencies specialized in intelligent web scraping on Catch Experts,

📲 Stay connected for the latest in AI, data automation, and scraping innovation:

💼 LinkedIn

🐦 Twitter

📸 Instagram

👍 Facebook

▶️ YouTube

[mattersuite]

CaseFox introduces MatterSuite, an AI-powered matter management platform designed to streamline workflows for law firms and in-house legal teams. With advanced AI-driven legal research, smart automation, document management, and seamless collaboration, MatterSuite empowers legal professionals to manage cases more efficiently than ever. Discover how AI is revolutionizing legal practice

[regulatoryrisks]

AI's Transformative Role in Regulatory Compliance Consulting

Discover how AI is transforming regulatory compliance consulting with real-time monitoring, adaptive frameworks, and enhanced efficiency for businesses worldwide. Click on https://postr.yruz.one/ai-regulatory-compliance-consulting-solutions

[ediscoveryai]

Leveraging AI in eDiscovery: Early Case Assessment Software Solutions

In today’s fast-paced legal landscape, the ability to quickly and accurately assess a case can make all the difference. As litigation becomes increasingly complex, traditional methods of eDiscovery can feel like navigating a maze without a map. Enter early case assessment software—an innovative solution that leverages artificial intelligence to revolutionize how legal professionals approach their cases. Imagine having insights at your fingertips almost instantly. With early case assessment tools, lawyers and firms can uncover critical information that shapes strategy and decision-making right from the start. This shift not only enhances efficiency but also positions legal teams to tackle challenges head-on in an ever-evolving environment. Join us as we explore how these intelligent solutions are transforming ai in ediscovery and empowering legal practitioners to unlock valuable insights faster than ever before.

Unlock Insights Faster: The Power of Early Case Assessment

Early case assessment software is a game changer for legal professionals looking to gain an edge. By harnessing advanced algorithms, these tools sift through mountains of data rapidly. This capability allows lawyers to pinpoint relevant information without the tedious manual review. The speed at which insights are generated can shift the dynamics of a case. Legal teams can assess risks, determine strengths and weaknesses, and make informed decisions much earlier in the process. Additionally, these solutions provide visual analytics that transform complex data into understandable formats. Lawyers can quickly grasp key trends and patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed. As cases evolve, ongoing assessment becomes crucial. Real-time updates enable attorneys to adapt strategies seamlessly as new evidence comes to light. With early case assessment software, unlocking valuable insights becomes not just possible but effortless.

Transforming eDiscovery: The Future of Legal Analytics

The landscape of eDiscovery is rapidly evolving. Legal analytics powered by artificial intelligence is at the forefront of this transformation. AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of data in mere seconds, uncovering patterns and insights that would take traditional methods weeks or even months to reveal. This capability enables legal professionals to make informed decisions quickly. Predictive coding and machine learning are game-changers. They allow teams to prioritize relevant documents, reducing the volume for review significantly. As a result, lawyers can focus on strategy rather than sifting through irrelevant files. Moreover, advanced visualizations help attorneys grasp complex data narratives effortlessly. With these tools, they become equipped not just to react but also to anticipate outcomes based on historical data trends. Embracing legal analytics means staying ahead in an increasingly competitive field where speed and precision matter more than ever.

Reduce Costs and Time with Intelligent Case Assessment Tools

The legal landscape is evolving rapidly, and so are the tools available to practitioners. Intelligent case assessment software plays a pivotal role in this transformation. By harnessing AI capabilities, these solutions expedite the process of evaluating cases early on. They sift through massive datasets with speed and accuracy that traditional methods simply cannot match. This efficiency translates into significant cost savings for law firms and clients alike. Instead of pouring resources into lengthy manual reviews, teams can allocate their time where it truly matters—strategizing and building stronger cases. Moreover, the intuitive interface of many modern tools allows even those who may not be tech-savvy to navigate complex data easily. As a result, stakeholders at all levels can access critical insights without steep learning curves or extensive training. With intelligent case assessment tools at your disposal, you empower your legal team to make informed decisions quickly while reducing overhead costs associated with prolonged assessments. Embracing these advancements isn't just about keeping pace; it's about staying ahead in an increasingly competitive field. By integrating early case assessment software into your eDiscovery workflow, you're not merely adapting—you're transforming how legal professionals approach litigation from day one. The future belongs to those ready to leverage technology for smarter outcomes.

[techdriveplay]

Self Driving Cars: Exploring the Future, Benefits, and Impact

The future of self-driving cars promises to transform the way we travel, work, and live. As we stand on the brink of a new automotive revolution, the advancements in autonomous vehicle technology are set to redefine transportation. The rapid progress in artificial intelligence, sensor technology, and machine learning has brought us closer than ever to a world where cars drive themselves, offering…

[chicbitter]

AI meeting note taker Boost Productivity Fast ⚡

AI meeting note taker solutions for enhancing productivity Introduction Real-World Business Case Study Comparison of Leading AI Meeting Note Taker Solutions Key Insights and Statistics 5 Key Takeaways Frequently Asked Questions References Exploring AI meeting note taker solutions has become essential for modern businesses aiming to enhance productivity. These tools, which include singular AI…

[mylegalsoftwareblog]

Will AI Replace Paralegals? The Future of Legal Support Roles

Explore how AI is transforming the legal industry and whether paralegals could be replaced by automation. Learn about AI-powered legal tools, efficiency gains, and the evolving role of paralegals in a tech-driven legal landscape.

Read more: https://mylegalsoftware.com/will-ai-replace-paralegals/

[byepaper]

Turning Legal Document Scanning Into Task Management 

In legal practice, time is limited—and most of it goes into handling documents. Many lawyers and law firms lose hours each week searching for files. Studies show they can lose up to six hours every week due to poor document systems. Scanning paper files is a start. But building a digital archive alone doesn’t  solve the problem. If the system can’t interpret, sort, and trigger the next steps, it remains a static record. What firms need is a system that reads, extracts, and routes information automatically. This shift turns a basic scan into a process that saves time, reduces risk, and improves oversight, and that’s where turning legal document scanning into actionable tasks with an AI document and task management app comes into the picture. 

The Cost of Paper-Based Processes 

Firms still relying on paper face more than storage problems. Manual systems cost money, slow down work, and expose firms to risk. On average, lawyers lose over $9,000 per year in productivity from the time spent finding or recreating files. That’s nearly 10% of annual output lost. 

There are also legal risks. Paper files are easier to misplace, harder to track, and more vulnerable to breaches. When sensitive data sits in multiple locations, it’s harder to secure. Legal document scanning—done right—is  now a basic requirement for modern risk management in legal firms, as it not only secures files but also provides actionable tasks and makes documents easier to understand.  

From Flatbed Scans to Intelligent Processing 

Scanning used to mean creating a picture of a document. Now, it means extracting usable information. The first step in this shift was Optical Character Recognition (OCR), which reads and digitizes printed text. That alone changed how firms manage discovery and case files. 

The next step is machine learning. AI now reads the output from OCR, identifies key information—like  client names, dates, and document types—and tags it. The system can file the documents automatically to various departments and by creating actionable tasks, it can even decide who needs to act on it next. 

This moves legal document scanning from a back-office task to the starting point of a structured, digital workflow and turning legal document scanning into actionable tasks is something that can help these firms in enhancing productivity. 

The Key Shift: Creating Tasks from Documents 

Manually tracking documents, tasks, and deadlines wastes time. It’s also one of the top pain points for in-house lawyers. Smart systems like AI document and task management apps now create tasks directly from incoming documents with legal document scanning. The system can assign work to associates, notify partners, and set deadlines without manual input. 

These apps help reduce the need for updates by email or chat. Since the AI based Document and Task management apps come with a central dashboard these help keeping whole team on the same page. WIth a system like a legal document scanner and task management app a firm can ensure that everyone knows what’s due, when, and why. These apps help cut down on missed steps and repeated work while also giving leadership better oversight without adding to their workload. 

Conclusion: Make Every Scan Count 

Legal document scanning is no longer about storage. It’s about action. The firms that benefit with a AI based document and task management app the most are those that want the work to move forward—automatically, securely, and on time. 

If your firm is still just scanning, it may be missing the real value. The goal isn’t a digital copy. It’s what that copy triggers. The next step is clear: get an AI document management system that not only keeps scanned legal documents safe but also turns these documents into tasks. 

[txttletale]

really silly how people are talking about the funko-itch dispute with endless stress on the fact that an AI (pause for the audience to gasp in horror) filed these stupid frivolous copyright claims. yes, it is extremely farcical and pathetic that something like this can happen just because of dopey automated systems pinging off each other while pointedly ignoring real human input--but it would still be an outrage for funko, the funko pop company, the company that makes hideous landfill ballast shaped like Characters from Brand, to take down an enormous platform for independent art over Brand Infringement even if the claim was studiously hand-filed by a clerk making an ironclad legal case that itch.io had Infringed upon the Funko Brand

[libraford]

Alright, I said I was going to talk in more detail about the city council meeting to sort of like... demystify the process for people that are nervous about getting involved on the local level.

Just for disclosure- my city is somewhat unique in that the city council has a touch more power than the mayor in terms of decision making and this experience may not be the same across the board.

Secondly- I am kind of in the dark about a lot of the legal stuff.

Okay.

So both our city council and board of ed meetings will meet three times on an issue before making any official decision. Citizens can propose things, but I'm not sure what the official process for that is. I'll have to look into that further.

This past meeting was the final vote meeting for a conversion therapy ban. I heard about it through a couple activism groups on facebook. The measure had been proposed before but then struck down with a previous city council.

If you cannot or do not want to attend a meeting for any reason, you can likely message one of the members of the group organizing around the issue and ask them to speak on your behalf. You can then send that person a written version of what you'd like to say.

If you want to attend, you do not have to speak. Attendance is noted. You do not have to interact with anyone.

IF YOU PLAN ON SPEAKING:

There is a section of every meeting set aside for public comments. Anyone can speak. It does not have to be about a pertinent issue. Last time, a guy got up and talked about AI and automation taking jobs when there was nothing proposed about it.

The rules for speaking will be stated at the beginning of the public comments section. Sometimes there is a sign up sheet to speak, sometimes you can just jump in line.

If you want to speak but you're not a great speaker, I PROMISE YOU that you're not the weirdest person to stand at the podium. You are not the shyest, you do not have the worst stutter. This is not a school presentation where you'll be graded on your performance. You are allowed to read from a prepared statement. You can keep it short, and that is actually preferred because ours has a 3 minute time limit.

If you want to be visible and you want to speak, but do not know what to say, there is absolutely NO SHAME in getting up there and saying "I would like to echo support for (bill)." And in fact, that is a good way to start any speech because it makes it clear what your intentions are.

If you DO speak, they will ask that you state your name and your address (its okay if you just state your suburb instead of full address.) There is a roster to put your name and address. They will not harass you, but it has to go on public record if you spoke at a meeting.

Once the public comments section is over, you cannot speak up any longer during the meeting. The council takes the floor. You may sit back down in the audience or you may leave at any time.

If one of the issues discussed is actionable (an amendment, a bill) the council will discuss it openly and vote on it. They will vote on it for every meeting as a way to gauge support. If its the first meeting on an issue and the vote looks grim, the decision isn't final. The council discussion last night focused on things like potential flaws in the amendment, potential abuses of the rules, anonymity, practical things. Our city council meetings are also attended by a law professional, the city manager, the clerk, and other professionals who are capable of answering the more complicated questions.

Final vote meetings can get a bit heated. Last night there were attendees that were booing council members and speakers that were against the amendment. I personally found that a bit rude, but it seemed that this was something that... happens? People get passionate.

After final votes, the meeting continues. Again, you can leave at any time. I stayed because they were talking about things that are related to my job and kinda interesting.

There's a wrap-up where they may discuss decisions made and other social topics. And then the meeting is adjourned and if you haven't left already you can go.

The people who are advocating for positive change WANT you to be involved in the process, at any level. This is the entry level of involvement that ANYONE can do. My hillbilly ass got up there with all my ain'ts and y'alls and they had to listen because I'm part of their public body.

So anyway, that's what its like to talk at city hall. Its scary, but its not so bad if you write it out first, and I think the more people that get involved on this level the more power we can have.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Copyright takedowns are a cautionary tale that few are heeding

On July 14, I'm giving the closing keynote for the fifteenth HACKERS ON PLANET EARTH, in QUEENS, NY. Happy Bastille Day! On July 20, I'm appearing in CHICAGO at Exile in Bookville.

We're living through one of those moments when millions of people become suddenly and overwhelmingly interested in fair use, one of the subtlest and worst-understood aspects of copyright law. It's not a subject you can master by skimming a Wikipedia article!

I've been talking about fair use with laypeople for more than 20 years. I've met so many people who possess the unshakable, serene confidence of the truly wrong, like the people who think fair use means you can take x words from a book, or y seconds from a song and it will always be fair, while anything more will never be.

Or the people who think that if you violate any of the four factors, your use can't be fair – or the people who think that if you fail all of the four factors, you must be infringing (people, the Supreme Court is calling and they want to tell you about the Betamax!).

You might think that you can never quote a song lyric in a book without infringing copyright, or that you must clear every musical sample. You might be rock solid certain that scraping the web to train an AI is infringing. If you hold those beliefs, you do not understand the "fact intensive" nature of fair use.

But you can learn! It's actually a really cool and interesting and gnarly subject, and it's a favorite of copyright scholars, who have really fascinating disagreements and discussions about the subject. These discussions often key off of the controversies of the moment, but inevitably they implicate earlier fights about everything from the piano roll to 2 Live Crew to antiracist retellings of Gone With the Wind.

One of the most interesting discussions of fair use you can ask for took place in 2019, when the NYU Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy held a symposium called "Proving IP." One of the panels featured dueling musicologists debating the merits of the Blurred Lines case. That case marked a turning point in music copyright, with the Marvin Gaye estate successfully suing Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for copying the "vibe" of Gaye's "Got to Give it Up."

Naturally, this discussion featured clips from both songs as the experts – joined by some of America's top copyright scholars – delved into the legal reasoning and future consequences of the case. It would be literally impossible to discuss this case without those clips.

And that's where the problems start: as soon as the symposium was uploaded to Youtube, it was flagged and removed by Content ID, Google's $100,000,000 copyright enforcement system. This initial takedown was fully automated, which is how Content ID works: rightsholders upload audio to claim it, and then Content ID removes other videos where that audio appears (rightsholders can also specify that videos with matching clips be demonetized, or that the ad revenue from those videos be diverted to the rightsholders).

But Content ID has a safety valve: an uploader whose video has been incorrectly flagged can challenge the takedown. The case is then punted to the rightsholder, who has to manually renew or drop their claim. In the case of this symposium, the rightsholder was Universal Music Group, the largest record company in the world. UMG's personnel reviewed the video and did not drop the claim.

99.99% of the time, that's where the story would end, for many reasons. First of all, most people don't understand fair use well enough to contest the judgment of a cosmically vast, unimaginably rich monopolist who wants to censor their video. Just as importantly, though, is that Content ID is a Byzantine system that is nearly as complex as fair use, but it's an entirely private affair, created and adjudicated by another galactic-scale monopolist (Google).

Google's copyright enforcement system is a cod-legal regime with all the downsides of the law, and a few wrinkles of its own (for example, it's a system without lawyers – just corporate experts doing battle with laypeople). And a single mis-step can result in your video being deleted or your account being permanently deleted, along with every video you've ever posted. For people who make their living on audiovisual content, losing your Youtube account is an extinction-level event:

https://www.eff.org/wp/unfiltered-how-youtubes-content-id-discourages-fair-use-and-dictates-what-we-see-online

So for the average Youtuber, Content ID is a kind of Kafka-as-a-Service system that is always avoided and never investigated. But the Engelbert Center isn't your average Youtuber: they boast some of the country's top copyright experts, specializing in exactly the questions Youtube's Content ID is supposed to be adjudicating.

So naturally, they challenged the takedown – only to have UMG double down. This is par for the course with UMG: they are infamous for refusing to consider fair use in takedown requests. Their stance is so unreasonable that a court actually found them guilty of violating the DMCA's provision against fraudulent takedowns:

https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

But the DMCA's takedown system is part of the real law, while Content ID is a fake law, created and overseen by a tech monopolist, not a court. So the fate of the Blurred Lines discussion turned on the Engelberg Center's ability to navigate both the law and the n-dimensional topology of Content ID's takedown flowchart.

It took more than a year, but eventually, Engelberg prevailed.

Until they didn't.

If Content ID was a person, it would be baby, specifically, a baby under 18 months old – that is, before the development of "object permanence." Until our 18th month (or so), we lack the ability to reason about things we can't see – this the period when small babies find peek-a-boo amazing. Object permanence is the ability to understand things that aren't in your immediate field of vision.

Content ID has no object permanence. Despite the fact that the Engelberg Blurred Lines panel was the most involved fair use question the system was ever called upon to parse, it managed to repeatedly forget that it had decided that the panel could stay up. Over and over since that initial determination, Content ID has taken down the video of the panel, forcing Engelberg to go through the whole process again.

But that's just for starters, because Youtube isn't the only place where a copyright enforcement bot is making billions of unsupervised, unaccountable decisions about what audiovisual material you're allowed to access.

Spotify is yet another monopolist, with a justifiable reputation for being extremely hostile to artists' interests, thanks in large part to the role that UMG and the other major record labels played in designing its business rules:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/#stunt-publishing

Spotify has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to capture the podcasting market, in the hopes of converting one of the last truly open digital publishing systems into a product under its control:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/27/enshittification-resistance/#ummauerter-garten-nein

Thankfully, that campaign has failed – but millions of people have (unwisely) ditched their open podcatchers in favor of Spotify's pre-enshittified app, so everyone with a podcast now must target Spotify for distribution if they hope to reach those captive users.

Guess who has a podcast? The Engelberg Center.

Naturally, Engelberg's podcast includes the audio of that Blurred Lines panel, and that audio includes samples from both "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up."

So – naturally – UMG keeps taking down the podcast.

Spotify has its own answer to Content ID, and incredibly, it's even worse and harder to navigate than Google's pretend legal system. As Engelberg describes in its latest post, UMG and Spotify have colluded to ensure that this now-classic discussion of fair use will never be able to take advantage of fair use itself:

https://www.nyuengelberg.org/news/how-explaining-copyright-broke-the-spotify-copyright-system/

Remember, this is the best case scenario for arguing about fair use with a monopolist like UMG, Google, or Spotify. As Engelberg puts it:

The Engelberg Center had an extraordinarily high level of interest in pursuing this issue, and legal confidence in our position that would have cost an average podcaster tens of thousands of dollars to develop. That cannot be what is required to challenge the removal of a podcast episode.

Automated takedown systems are the tech industry's answer to the "notice-and-takedown" system that was invented to broker a peace between copyright law and the internet, starting with the US's 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA implements (and exceeds) a pair of 1996 UN treaties, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and most countries in the world have some version of notice-and-takedown.

Big corporate rightsholders claim that notice-and-takedown is a gift to the tech sector, one that allows tech companies to get away with copyright infringement. They want a "strict liability" regime, where any platform that allows a user to post something infringing is liable for that infringement, to the tune of $150,000 in statutory damages.

Of course, there's no way for a platform to know a priori whether something a user posts infringes on someone's copyright. There is no registry of everything that is copyrighted, and of course, fair use means that there are lots of ways to legally reproduce someone's work without their permission (or even when they object). Even if every person who ever has trained or ever will train as a copyright lawyer worked 24/7 for just one online platform to evaluate every tweet, video, audio clip and image for copyright infringement, they wouldn't be able to touch even 1% of what gets posted to that platform.

The "compromise" that the entertainment industry wants is automated takedown – a system like Content ID, where rightsholders register their copyrights and platforms block anything that matches the registry. This "filternet" proposal became law in the EU in 2019 with Article 17 of the Digital Single Market Directive:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/today-europe-lost-internet-now-we-fight-back

This was the most controversial directive in EU history, and – as experts warned at the time – there is no way to implement it without violating the GDPR, Europe's privacy law, so now it's stuck in limbo:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/eus-copyright-directive-still-about-filters-eus-top-court-limits-its-use

As critics pointed out during the EU debate, there are so many problems with filternets. For one thing, these copyright filters are very expensive: remember that Google has spent $100m on Content ID alone, and that only does a fraction of what filternet advocates demand. Building the filternet would cost so much that only the biggest tech monopolists could afford it, which is to say, filternets are a legal requirement to keep the tech monopolists in business and prevent smaller, better platforms from ever coming into existence.

Filternets are also incapable of telling the difference between similar files. This is especially problematic for classical musicians, who routinely find their work blocked or demonetized by Sony Music, which claims performances of all the most important classical music compositions:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/08/copyfraud/#beethoven-just-wrote-music

Content ID can't tell the difference between your performance of "The Goldberg Variations" and Glenn Gould's. For classical musicians, the best case scenario is to have their online wages stolen by Sony, who fraudulently claim copyright to their recordings. The worst case scenario is that their video is blocked, their channel deleted, and their names blacklisted from ever opening another account on one of the monopoly platforms.

But when it comes to free expression, the role that notice-and-takedown and filternets play in the creative industries is really a sideshow. In creating a system of no-evidence-required takedowns, with no real consequences for fraudulent takedowns, these systems are huge gift to the world's worst criminals. For example, "reputation management" companies help convicted rapists, murderers, and even war criminals purge the internet of true accounts of their crimes by claiming copyright over them:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/23/reputation-laundry/#dark-ops

Remember how during the covid lockdowns, scumbags marketed junk devices by claiming that they'd protect you from the virus? Their products remained online, while the detailed scientific articles warning people about the fraud were speedily removed through false copyright claims:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/18/labor-shortage-discourse-time/#copyfraud

Copyfraud – making false copyright claims – is an extremely safe crime to commit, and it's not just quack covid remedy peddlers and war criminals who avail themselves of it. Tech giants like Adobe do not hesitate to abuse the takedown system, even when that means exposing millions of people to spyware:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/13/theres-an-app-for-that/#gnash

Dirty cops play loud, copyrighted music during confrontations with the public, in the hopes that this will trigger copyright filters on services like Youtube and Instagram and block videos of their misbehavior:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/10/duke-sucks/#bhpd

But even if you solved all these problems with filternets and takedown, this system would still choke on fair use and other copyright exceptions. These are "fact intensive" questions that the world's top experts struggle with (as anyone who watches the Blurred Lines panel can see). There's no way we can get software to accurately determine when a use is or isn't fair.

That's a question that the entertainment industry itself is increasingly conflicted about. The Blurred Lines judgment opened the floodgates to a new kind of copyright troll – grifters who sued the record labels and their biggest stars for taking the "vibe" of songs that no one ever heard of. Musicians like Ed Sheeran have been sued for millions of dollars over these alleged infringements. These suits caused the record industry to (ahem) change its tune on fair use, insisting that fair use should be broadly interpreted to protect people who made things that were similar to existing works. The labels understood that if "vibe rights" became accepted law, they'd end up in the kind of hell that the rest of us enter when we try to post things online – where anything they produce can trigger takedowns, long legal battles, and millions in liability:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/08/oh-why/#two-notes-and-running

But the music industry remains deeply conflicted over fair use. Take the curious case of Katy Perry's song "Dark Horse," which attracted a multimillion-dollar suit from an obscure Christian rapper who claimed that a brief phrase in "Dark Horse" was impermissibly similar to his song "A Joyful Noise."

Perry and her publisher, Warner Chappell, lost the suit and were ordered to pay $2.8m. While they subsequently won an appeal, this definitely put the cold grue up Warner Chappell's back. They could see a long future of similar suits launched by treasure hunters hoping for a quick settlement.

But here's where it gets unbelievably weird and darkly funny. A Youtuber named Adam Neely made a wildly successful viral video about the suit, taking Perry's side and defending her song. As part of that video, Neely included a few seconds' worth of "A Joyful Noise," the song that Perry was accused of copying.

In court, Warner Chappell had argued that "A Joyful Noise" was not similar to Perry's "Dark Horse." But when Warner had Google remove Neely's video, they claimed that the sample from "Joyful Noise" was actually taken from "Dark Horse." Incredibly, they maintained this position through multiple appeals through the Content ID system:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/03/05/warner-chappell-copyfraud/#warnerchappell

In other words, they maintained that the song that they'd told the court was totally dissimilar to their own was so indistinguishable from their own song that they couldn't tell the difference!

Now, this question of vibes, similarity and fair use has only gotten more intense since the takedown of Neely's video. Just this week, the RIAA sued several AI companies, claiming that the songs the AI shits out are infringingly similar to tracks in their catalog:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/record-labels-sue-music-generators-suno-and-udio-1235042056/

Even before "Blurred Lines," this was a difficult fair use question to answer, with lots of chewy nuances. Just ask George Harrison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord

But as the Engelberg panel's cohort of dueling musicologists and renowned copyright experts proved, this question only gets harder as time goes by. If you listen to that panel (if you can listen to that panel), you'll be hard pressed to come away with any certainty about the questions in this latest lawsuit.

The notice-and-takedown system is what's known as an "intermediary liability" rule. Platforms are "intermediaries" in that they connect end users with each other and with businesses. Ebay and Etsy and Amazon connect buyers and sellers; Facebook and Google and Tiktok connect performers, advertisers and publishers with audiences and so on.

For copyright, notice-and-takedown gives platforms a "safe harbor." A platform doesn't have to remove material after an allegation of infringement, but if they don't, they're jointly liable for any future judgment. In other words, Youtube isn't required to take down the Engelberg Blurred Lines panel, but if UMG sues Engelberg and wins a judgment, Google will also have to pay out.

During the adoption of the 1996 WIPO treaties and the 1998 US DMCA, this safe harbor rule was characterized as a balance between the rights of the public to publish online and the interest of rightsholders whose material might be infringed upon. The idea was that things that were likely to be infringing would be immediately removed once the platform received a notification, but that platforms would ignore spurious or obviously fraudulent takedowns.

That's not how it worked out. Whether it's Sony Music claiming to own your performance of "Fur Elise" or a war criminal claiming authorship over a newspaper story about his crimes, platforms nuke first and ask questions never. Why not? If they ignore a takedown and get it wrong, they suffer dire consequences ($150,000 per claim). But if they take action on a dodgy claim, there are no consequences. Of course they're just going to delete anything they're asked to delete.

This is how platforms always handle liability, and that's a lesson that we really should have internalized by now. After all, the DMCA is the second-most famous intermediary liability system for the internet – the most (in)famous is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

This is a 27-word law that says that platforms are not liable for civil damages arising from their users' speech. Now, this is a US law, and in the US, there aren't many civil damages from speech to begin with. The First Amendment makes it very hard to get a libel judgment, and even when these judgments are secured, damages are typically limited to "actual damages" – generally a low sum. Most of the worst online speech is actually not illegal: hate speech, misinformation and disinformation are all covered by the First Amendment.

Notwithstanding the First Amendment, there are categories of speech that US law criminalizes: actual threats of violence, criminal harassment, and committing certain kinds of legal, medical, election or financial fraud. These are all exempted from Section 230, which only provides immunity for civil suits, not criminal acts.

What Section 230 really protects platforms from is being named to unwinnable nuisance suits by unscrupulous parties who are betting that the platforms would rather remove legal speech that they object to than go to court. A generation of copyfraudsters have proved that this is a very safe bet:

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

In other words, if you made a #MeToo accusation, or if you were a gig worker using an online forum to organize a union, or if you were blowing the whistle on your employer's toxic waste leaks, or if you were any other under-resourced person being bullied by a wealthy, powerful person or organization, that organization could shut you up by threatening to sue the platform that hosted your speech. The platform would immediately cave. But those same rich and powerful people would have access to the lawyers and back-channels that would prevent you from doing the same to them – that's why Sony can get your Brahms recital taken down, but you can't turn around and do the same to them.

This is true of every intermediary liability system, and it's been true since the earliest days of the internet, and it keeps getting proven to be true. Six years ago, Trump signed SESTA/FOSTA, a law that allowed platforms to be held civilly liable by survivors of sex trafficking. At the time, advocates claimed that this would only affect "sexual slavery" and would not impact consensual sex-work.

But from the start, and ever since, SESTA/FOSTA has primarily targeted consensual sex-work, to the immediate, lasting, and profound detriment of sex workers:

https://hackinghustling.org/what-is-sesta-fosta/

SESTA/FOSTA killed the "bad date" forums where sex workers circulated the details of violent and unstable clients, killed the online booking sites that allowed sex workers to screen their clients, and killed the payment processors that let sex workers avoid holding unsafe amounts of cash:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/09/fight-overturn-fosta-unconstitutional-internet-censorship-law-continues

SESTA/FOSTA made voluntary sex work more dangerous – and also made life harder for law enforcement efforts to target sex trafficking:

https://hackinghustling.org/erased-the-impact-of-fosta-sesta-2020/

Despite half a decade of SESTA/FOSTA, despite 15 years of filternets, despite a quarter century of notice-and-takedown, people continue to insist that getting rid of safe harbors will punish Big Tech and make life better for everyday internet users.

As of now, it seems likely that Section 230 will be dead by then end of 2025, even if there is nothing in place to replace it:

https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/bipartisan-energy-and-commerce-leaders-announce-legislative-hearing-on-sunsetting-section-230

This isn't the win that some people think it is. By making platforms responsible for screening the content their users post, we create a system that only the largest tech monopolies can survive, and only then by removing or blocking anything that threatens or displeases the wealthy and powerful.

Filternets are not precision-guided takedown machines; they're indiscriminate cluster-bombs that destroy anything in the vicinity of illegal speech – including (and especially) the best-informed, most informative discussions of how these systems go wrong, and how that blocks the complaints of the powerless, the marginalized, and the abused.

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/27/nuke-first/#ask-questions-never

Image: EFF https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/yt-fu-1b.png

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[chicbitter]

AI document summarization How to Boost Workflow Efficiency 🚀

AI document summarization tools for efficient workflow Introduction Real-World Business Case Study AI Document Summarization Tools Comparison Key Insights and Statistics Key Takeaways Frequently Asked Questions References Conclusion AI document summarization tools have rapidly become indispensable for modern businesses aiming to streamline their information processing. By leveraging the power…