AI Industry Faces Largest Copyright Class Action Threat - 1

Image by Tingey Injury Law Firm, from Unsplash

AI Industry Faces Largest Copyright Class Action Threat

  • Written by Kiara Fabbri Former Tech News Writer
  • Fact-Checked by Sarah Frazier Former Content Manager

The AI industry faces its largest legal challenge yet because a court certified what might become the largest copyright class action suit in history.

In a rush? Here are the quick facts:

  • Court certified a massive copyright class action against AI company Anthropic.
  • Up to seven million claimants could join, risking huge damages.
  • Anthropic warns damages could total hundreds of billions of dollars.

The lawsuit, initially brought by just three authors against Anthropic, now threatens to expand into a massive case that could include seven million potential claimants, as first pointed out by ArsTechnica . If the case moves forward, it could financially devastate the entire AI sector due to potentially massive damages.

Anthropic petitioned the appeals court to reverse the class certification decision, arguing that the district judge William Alsup performed an insufficient review. ArsTecnica notes that the company faces potential damages of “hundreds of billions of dollars” if the certification persists, as each claimant’s work could result in penalties reaching $150,000.

Industry groups like the Consumer Technology Association, along with the Computer and Communications Industry Association, have joined Anthropic and argued that this type of ruling would produce negative consequences for the entire AI sector.

They fear it could scare off investment and slow down AI innovation in the U.S., and threaten its global position.

The groups say that one key problem lies in the fact that copyright lawsuits rarely fit well into class actions, as each author must prove ownership. Many authors may never even hear about the suit, and the court’s proposed notification system puts the burden on claimants themselves. There are also several issues around “orphan works,” which are partially owned books, and estates of deceased authors.

ArsTechnica reports that both author and library advocates support this stance because the court failed to consider decades of established copyright research and legislation. They argue this rushed ruling could prevent fair resolution of important legal questions around AI’s use of copyrighted material.

“This case is of exceptional importance,” they said, as reported by ArsTechnica. The decision risks creating a “death knell” for properly addressing authors’ rights in the era of AI.

Hackers Can Now Quickly And Easily Open High-Security Safes - 2

Image by rc.xyz NFT gallery, from Unsplash

Hackers Can Now Quickly And Easily Open High-Security Safes

  • Written by Kiara Fabbri Former Tech News Writer
  • Fact-Checked by Sarah Frazier Former Content Manager

Security researchers discovered major weaknesses in electronic safe locks, affecting at least eight brands designed to protect guns, cash, and narcotics.

In a rush? Here are the quick facts:

  • Researchers found two ways to crack Securam ProLogic electronic safes.
  • ResetHeist exploits firmware to generate new unlock codes without special tools.
  • Senator Wyden warns backdoors risk exploitation by hackers and adversaries.

James Rowley and Mark Omo began investigating after learning Liberty Safe had given the FBI a code to open a suspect’s safe in 2023. “How is it possible that there’s this physical security product, and somebody else has the keys to the kingdom?” Omo asks,according to a detailed report by WIRED .

The researchers found two methods to access Securam ProLogic locks installed in Liberty Safes, and many other models. The ‘ResetHeist’ technique lets users create new unlock codes by analyzing information stored in the lock’s firmware. The second method, called ‘CodeSnatch’, allows users to retrieve a “super code” by plugging into a hidden port, which they say is “really not that challenging” to exploit.

Securam’s CEO, Chunlei Zhou, told WIRED the vulnerabilities are “already well known to industry professionals” and require “specialized knowledge, skills, and equipment.” Omo and Rowley disagree, saying one method needs no special gear and is far more serious than drilling or cutting a safe.

The company plans to address the security flaws through an upcoming new product line. However, Wired noted that it refused to provide updates for existing locks. Hence, customers who want enhanced security must purchase new locks.

Senator Ron Wyden says the findings prove his warnings about backdoors. “Experts have warned for years that backdoors will be exploited by our adversaries […] This is exactly why Congress must reject calls for new backdoors in encryption technology.”

Omo and Rowley are sharing their findings now to alert safe owners. “We want Securam to fix this, but more importantly we want people to know how bad this can be,” Omo says to WIRED. “Electronic locks have electronics inside. And electronics are hard to secure.”