Close Menu
Technology Mag

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

    What's Hot

    With RFK Jr. in Charge, Insurers Aren’t Saying If They’ll Cover Vaccines for Kids If Government Stops Recommending Them

    July 5, 2025

    I’m an Outdoor Writer. I’m Shopping These 55 Deals From REI’s 4th of July Sale

    July 5, 2025

    Samsung is about to find out if Ultra is enough

    July 5, 2025
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Subscribe
    Technology Mag
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram YouTube
    • Home
    • News
    • Business
    • Games
    • Gear
    • Reviews
    • Science
    • Security
    • Trending
    • Press Release
    Technology Mag
    Home » Congress Wants Tech Companies to Pay Up for AI Training Data
    Business

    Congress Wants Tech Companies to Pay Up for AI Training Data

    News RoomBy News RoomJanuary 11, 20243 Mins Read
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Reddit WhatsApp Email

    Do AI companies need to pay for the training data that powers their generative AI systems? The question is hotly contested in Silicon Valley and in a wave of lawsuits levied against tech behemoths like Meta, Google, and OpenAI. In Washington, DC, though, there seems to be a growing consensus that the tech giants need to cough up.

    Today, at a Senate hearing on AI’s impact on journalism, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle agreed that OpenAI and others should pay media outlets for using their work in AI projects. “It’s not only morally right,” said Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law that held the hearing. “It’s legally required.”

    Josh Hawley, a Republican working with Blumenthal on AI legislation, agreed. “It shouldn’t be that just because the biggest companies in the world want to gobble up your data, they should be able to do it,” he said.

    Media industry leaders at the hearing today described how AI companies were imperiling their industry by using their work without compensation. Curtis LeGeyt, CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters, Danielle Coffey, CEO of the News Media Alliance, and Roger Lynch, CEO of Condé Nast, all spoke in favor of licensing. (WIRED is owned by Condé Nast.)

    Coffey claimed that AI companies “eviscerate the quality content they feed upon,” and Lynch characterized training data scraped without permission as “stolen goods.” Coffey and Lynch also both said that they believe AI companies are infringing on copyright under current law. Lynch urged lawmakers to clarify that using journalistic content without first brokering licensing agreements is not protected by fair use, a legal doctrine that permits copyright violations under certain conditions.

    Common Ground

    Senate hearings can be adversarial, but the mood today was largely congenial. The lawmakers and media industry insiders often applauded each others’ statements. “If Congress could clarify that the use of our content, or other publisher content, for the training and output of AI models is not fair use, then the free market will take care of the rest,” Lynch said at one point. “That seems eminently reasonable to me,” Hawley replied.

    Journalism professor Jeff Jarvis was the hearing’s only discordant voice. He asserted that training on data obtained without payment is, indeed, fair use, and spoke against compulsory licensing, arguing that it would damage the information ecosystem rather than safeguard it. “I must say that I am offended to see publishers lobby for protectionist legislation, trading on the political capital earned through journalism,” he said, jabbing at his fellow speakers. (Jarvis was also subject to the hearing’s only real contentious line of questioning, from Republican Marsha Blackburn, who needled Jarvis about whether AI is biased against conservatives and recited an AI-generated poem praising President Biden as evidence.)

    Outside of the committee room, there is less agreement that mandatory licensing is necessary. OpenAI and other AI companies have argued that it’s not viable to license all training data, and some independent AI experts agree.

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Email
    Previous ArticleMicrosoft briefly overtakes Apple to become the world’s most valuable company again
    Next Article Hertz is selling 20,000 EVs so it can buy more gas guzzlers

    Related Posts

    Despite Protests, Elon Musk Secures Air Permit for xAI

    July 4, 2025

    What Could a Healthy AI Companion Look Like?

    July 4, 2025

    For Today’s Business Traveler, It’s All About Work-Life Integration

    July 3, 2025

    Affluent Travelers Are Ditching Business Class for Business Jets

    July 2, 2025

    Airplane Wi-Fi Is Now … Good?

    July 2, 2025

    Business Travel Is Evolving Faster Than Ever. We’ll Help You Navigate It

    July 2, 2025
    Our Picks

    I’m an Outdoor Writer. I’m Shopping These 55 Deals From REI’s 4th of July Sale

    July 5, 2025

    Samsung is about to find out if Ultra is enough

    July 5, 2025

    Everything You Can Do in the Photoshop Mobile App

    July 5, 2025

    The Promise and Peril of Digital Security in the Age of Dictatorship

    July 5, 2025
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Pinterest
    • Instagram
    • YouTube
    • Vimeo
    Don't Miss
    News

    The Ploopy Knob is an open-source control dial for your PC

    By News RoomJuly 4, 2025

    Ploopy has announced another desktop accessory called the Ploopy Knob that can function like a…

    Laid-off workers should use AI to manage their emotions, says Xbox exec

    July 4, 2025

    Despite Protests, Elon Musk Secures Air Permit for xAI

    July 4, 2025

    This Is Why Tesla’s Robotaxi Launch Needed Human Babysitters

    July 4, 2025
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram Pinterest
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of use
    • Advertise
    • Contact
    © 2025 Technology Mag. All Rights Reserved.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.