Kalakshar US

The Internet Archive has often been a valuable resource for journalists, from it’s finding records of deleted tweets or providing academic texts for background research. However, the advent of AI has created a new tension between the parties. A few major publications have begun blocking the nonprofit digital library’s access to their content based on concerns that AI companies’ bots are using the Internet Archive’s collections to indirectly scrape their articles.

“A lot of these AI businesses are looking for readily available, structured databases of content,” Robert Hahn, head of business affairs and licensing for The Guardian, told Nieman Lab. “The Internet Archive’s API would have been an obvious place to plug their own machines into and suck out the IP.”

The New York Times took a similar step. “We are blocking the Internet Archive’s bot from accessing the Times because the Wayback Machine provides unfettered access to Times content — including by AI companies — without authorization,” a representative from the newspaper confirmed to Nieman Lab. Subscription-focused publication the Financial Times and social forum Reddit have also made moves to selectively block how the Internet Archive catalogs their material.

Many publishers have attempted to sue AI businesses for how they access content used to train large language models. To name a few just from the realm of journalism:

The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft

The Center for Investigative Reporting sued OpenAI and Microsoft

The Wall Street Journal and New York Post sued Perplexity

A group of publishers including The Atlantic, The Guardian and Politico sued Cohere

Penske Media sued Google

The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune sued Perplexity

Other media outlets have sought financial deals before offering up their libraries as training material, although those arrangements seem to provide compensation to the publishing companies rather than the writers. And that’s not even delving into the copyright and piracy issues also being fought against AI tools by other creative fields, from fiction writers to visual artists to musicians. The whole Nieman Lab story is well worth a read for anyone who has been following any of these creative industries’ responses to artificial intelligence.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/publishers-are-blocking-the-internet-archive-for-fear-ai-scrapers-can-use-it-as-a-workaround-204001754.html?src=rss 

A group of music publishers led by Concord Music Group and Universal Music Group are suing Anthropic, according to a report by Reuters. The suit accuses the AI company of illegally downloading more than 20,000 copyrighted songs, including sheet music, lyrics and compositions.

These songs were then allegedly fed into the chatbot Claude for training purposes. There are some iconic tunes named by Universal in the suit, including tracks by The Rolling Stones, Neil Diamond and Elton John, among many others. Concord is an independent publisher that handles artists like Common, Killer Mike and Korn.

The publishers issued a statement saying that the damages could amount to more than $3 billion. This would make it one of the largest non-class action copyright cases in US history.

“While Anthropic misleadingly claims to be an AI ‘safety and research’ company, its record of illegal torrenting of copyrighted works makes clear that its multibillion-dollar business empire has in fact been built on piracy,” the lawsuit says.

The suit was filed by the same legal team as last year’s Bartz v. Anthropic case. The music publishers say they found that Anthropic had been illegally downloading thousands of songs during the discovery process of that suit.

For the unfamiliar, the Bartz v. Anthropic case ended with an award of $1.5 billion to impacted writers after it was found that the company had illegally downloaded their published works for similar training purposes. The terms of that agreement dictated that the 500,000 authors involved in the case would get $3,000 per work. The $1.5 billion looks like a big number, but not so much when broken down like that. Also, Anthropic is worth around $350 billion.

In the Bartz case, Judge William Alsup ruled that it was legal for Anthropic to train its models on copyrighted content but not legal to acquire that content via piracy. We’ll have to wait and see how this new suit shakes out. The legal precedent here seems to suggest that if Anthropic would have just spent a buck on each copyrighted song, then they’d be in the clear. That’s an odd distinction when it comes to building an entire company around snatching up copyrighted content, but whatever.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/music-publishers-sue-anthropic-for-3-billion-over-flagrant-piracy-185459358.html?src=rss 

Apple has acquired Israel-based startup Q.ai, a move that could provide a much-needed boost to the tech giant’s capabilities in artificial intelligence. Although Apple has not disclosed terms of the deal, sources told Financial Times that the arrangement is reportedly valued at nearly $2 billion. If that figure is accurate, the Q.ai acquisition marks Apple’s second largest acquisition to date, followed by its purchase of Beats for $3 billion back in 2014.

Johny Srouji, Apple’s senior vice president of hardware technologies, said in a statement that Q.ai “is a remarkable company that is pioneering new and creative ways to use imaging and machine learning.” Apple hasn’t shared any specifics about how it plans to leverage the startup, but its past work indicates the possibility of Apple moving deeper into AI-powered wearables. “Patents filed by Q.ai show its technology being used in headphones or glasses, using ‘facial skin micro movements’ to communicate without talking,” the Times reported. 

The startup’s founding team, including CEO Aviad Maizels, will join Apple as part of the deal. This acquisition marks Maizels’ second sale to Apple; he previously founded a three-dimensional hearing business called PrimeSense that Apple bought back in 2013.

For several months, many tech insiders have speculated that an acquisition might be Apple’s best path forward to catching up in the AI race. In the company’s Q3 earnings call in July 2025, CEO Tim Cook acknowledged that “We’re open to M&A that accelerates our roadmap.” A deal like this one could eventually lead to Apple developing its own fully in-house AI chatbot rather than relying on a competitor like Google to power artificial intelligence in its Siri assistant.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/apple-acquires-qai-for-a-reported-2-billion-190017949.html?src=rss