Attributed metadata history
Up to 100 retained publisher events per page for a37ac0c006be9b5c100351d61a0685ad79355fd85ed01a1a4b937924dcbf3e05. Withdrawals and unavailable references remain attributed to their publishers.
intelligence_src_1face9fbd38e6da52e
observed · 2026-10-12 07:24:02 UTC
available
Fingerprint: 26390ad0fe5801d724db095b6f3e20dab68aab0d98bec680d558061152062b0a
intelligence_src_1face9fbd38e6da52e
observed · 2026-10-12 07:24:02 UTC
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed internet users and programmers a big win today, by rejecting an attempt to stretch a narrow provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) into a new source of copyright liability. The case involves Section 1202 of the DMCA, which prohibits intentionally removing copyright management information (CMI) like an author’s name or a copyright notice, from a copyrighted work. Open AI and Microsoft used code from Github as part of the training data for their LLMs, along with billions of other works. A group of anonymous Github contributors sued, alleging the new code coming out of these LLMs was similar to theirs—but with the CMI stripped out. The Ninth Circuit correctly agreed with what we said in our brief: removing copyright information from a copyrighted work is fundamentally different from creating a new work that didn't have CMI in the first place. Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was intended to serve as a backstop for traditional copyrights in the digital age—not to create a new, more expansive right to inhibit otherwise non-infringing uses. As we also explained, accepting the
Fingerprint: ccd4aac0f9e65104c122f2b0284e611003afd4863fef15c607552b5ade32831e