Meta is using pirated books to train AI — including those by N.L. authors
Artificial intelligence can't do the dishes or the laundry, but it can replicate the writing style of just about any writer, including those from Newfoundland and Labrador.
St. John's author Trudy Morgan-Cole was far from flattered when she saw her name and seven of her recent book titles on a searchable database published by The Atlantic in March.
It meant she was one of the millions of authors whose work was scraped from Library Genesis, a pirating website, to train Meta's AI language model.
Meta is the parent company of social media sites Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
"I was horrified," Morgan-Cole told CBC News.
"It's being done without the author's permission," she said. "Writers have been given no opportunity to say yes or no, and certainly no compensation."
What can this AI model do?
Uses of artificial intelligence are rapidly growing by the day, and Morgan-Cole believes that it has legitimate uses in sectors like science and medicine. However, she draws the line when it comes to producing literature.
The historical fiction author said she thinks the goal of AI in the world of writing "is to train it to replace human writers."
"I'm sure it'll be a long time before we see a Governor General's Award-winning novel written by an artificial intelligence," said Morgan-Cole. "But things that human authors get paid for now, like writing articles, writing copy for websites… I think there's going to be a big push to say, 'let's have that done by AI.'"
Morgan-Cole said the use of artificial intelligence to write takes away from human authors, replacing it with a "vastly inferior product."
She'd like to see publishers and writers' organizations step up to protect intellectual property.
What can we do?
John Degen, executive director of the Writers' Union of Canada, says the organization is working on that.
Speaking from Toronto, Degen said "it's deeply offensive to most authors" to have their work used to train AI to write — and the Library Genesis database is far-reaching.
"The last book I published was 20 years ago, and that book is in there," he said. "So if I'm in there, just about any Canadian author working today is in there."
The Writers' Union of Canada is pressing governments to put regulations in place so that companies like Meta have to seek permission and offer payment to writers in order to use their intellectual property.
He added that writers are also free to take matters into their own hands.
"You can contact Meta directly and tell them that you do not give permission for this use. You can contact Library Genesis and ask them to take this stuff down," Degen said.
"Do I have confidence that that's going to do anything? I don't, really, because we've been dealing with this kind of illicit use from the tech sector for about 20 years now."
That's why Degen wants leaders to take action and take artificial intelligence's power seriously — to give authors and other artists more agency over their content.
CBC asked for an interview with a representative from Meta.
In an emailed statement, the company said "we respect third-party intellectual property rights and believe our use of information to train AI models is consistent with existing law."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
2 hours ago
- Global News
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. Story continues below advertisement In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. Story continues below advertisement It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. Story continues below advertisement 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Story continues below advertisement Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system.
Globe and Mail
5 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Apple's AI Stumble: Why AAPL Stock Is the Weakest Link in Tech's 2025 Rebound
The S&P 500 (SPY) has shaken off its early-year jitters. After falling nearly 19% between April and May, the index has now clawed its way back to even. The charge higher has been led, once again, by the tech elite: Microsoft (MSFT), Nvidia (NVDA), Meta (META), Alphabet (GOOG) (GOOGL), Amazon (AMZN), and Tesla (TSLA). Dubbed the 'Magnificent Seven' alongside Apple (AAPL), these mega-cap names are driving the Nasdaq and cap-weighted S&P 500 higher, leaving smaller stocks in the dust. Confident Investing Starts Here: But there's one glaring exception: Apple. While the other six have rebounded sharply thanks to strong Q1 earnings and bullish AI investment plans, Apple's stock is still down nearly 19% year-to-date. It now ranks as the third-largest company by market capitalization, behind Microsoft and Nvidia. And its troubles go deeper than just price performance. AI Ambitions, Delayed Apple's long-hyped AI upgrade to Siri, once a potential crown jewel, has become a symbol of its struggles. Internally dubbed a 'reset,' the new AI-powered version of Siri promised to integrate across your calendar, mail, and messages. But repeated delays, software bugs, and underwhelming internal demos forced Apple to postpone the rollout, first from March to May quietly, and then indefinitely. According to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, hundreds of bugs still plague the software. Engineers say features that were advertised just last year still don't work. Ads were pulled. Morale dipped. And Apple, once a leader in personal tech, now risks being seen as an AI laggard. Lawsuits, Tariffs, and a Frustrated White House In early 2025, Apple paid out $95 million to settle two privacy lawsuits related to Siri's unintended recordings. Then came new tariffs. With Donald Trump back in the White House, the administration has imposed sweeping import taxes on China-made electronics, putting direct pressure on Apple's supply chain. Apple has responded by shifting some iPhone production to India, aiming to produce all U.S.-bound phones there by 2026. But Trump isn't pleased. 'I've told Tim Cook, the iPhones sold in the U.S. should be made here,' he said in May, threatening a 25% tariff on devices not assembled in America. To offset the pressure, Apple has pledged $500 billion in U.S. investment, including a server plant in Houston and a supplier training center in Michigan. But iPhones—its most critical product—remain mostly made overseas. The Bigger Picture for Investors Despite its current headwinds, Apple's long-term fundamentals remain solid. It boasts over 2 billion active devices, strong free cash flow, and a growing services business. But in the eyes of many investors, it missed the starting gun in the AI race. While rivals pour billions into GPUs and large language models, Apple is playing catch-up—now reportedly partnering with OpenAI to fill the gaps. TipRanks data indicates a waning of analyst enthusiasm, characterized by fewer 'Strong Buy' ratings, a decline in price target revisions, and cautious sentiment from both insiders and hedge funds. The Magnificent Seven may be back in form, but Apple, for now, looks like the weakest link. Is Apple Stock a Buy, Sell, or Hold? Turning to Wall Street, Apple is considered a Moderate Buy, based on 29 analysts' ratings. The average price target for AAPL stock is $228.22, suggesting a 12.27% upside. See more AAPL analyst ratings Disclaimer & Disclosure Report an Issue
Ottawa Citizen
a day ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Massive Battery Energy Storage System project sparks controversy at Ottawa committee meeting
Article content More than 60 speakers lined up Thursday to speak to the City of Ottawa's Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee over a proposal to build a vast electrical storage facility in West Carleton. Article content The subject of the marathon meeting was a $650-million Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) pitched for a parcel of land on Marchurst Road about one kilometre from Thomas A. Dolan Parkway, southwest of Dunrobin. Article content Article content Article content Brookfield Renewable Power Inc., through Evolugen, a Canadian company, was seeking a Municipal Support Resolution (MSR) to help clear the way for the project. Article content Article content Essentially, a BESS is a massive collective battery — in this case a lithium ion battery — to store electricity and distribute it as needed. The proposed property totals about 81 hectares of land. The electrical storage system would occupy about four hectares, with an additional six hectares used for an access road, a stormwater management pond and a substation. Article content Proponents for the project argued that the project was part of the solution as Ontario grappled with increased demand for energy. The BESS and others like it would add capacity and allow for flexible operation of the electrical grid as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions because BESSes reduce the need for power plants during times of peak demand. Article content Article content 'Our members have delivered dozens of projects just like this one that you are considering today, safely and reliably,' said Andrew Thiele, senior director of policy and government affairs with Energy Storage Canada, which represents about 110 members. Article content Article content 'Ottawa is in fierce competition with tech hubs around the world to attract talent and capital that empower Canadian businesses to thrive in these rapidly evolving sectors,' Thiel said. 'Often one of the most important concerns raised by our prospective members is that there is a continued and growing need for clean power.' Article content But there has been a firestorm over the project. Residents say they were surprised to learn about the proposal and the speed at which it had moved forward. City council rejected another proposal from Evolugen for a similar facility near Fitzroy Harbour last year.
