Breaking news

Energy Minister Endorses Party’s Continued Role In Government Amid Political Tumult

Strong Support for Government Coalition

In a recent interview with Alpha TV, Energy Minister and Vice President of the Democratic Party (DK) Michalis Damianous made his position unmistakably clear: the party must remain in the government and coalition. His remarks came during an interview with Nikos Neokleous, amidst an environment charged by political controversies.

Political Challenges and Emerging Allegations

Notably, the interview was conducted prior to the unfolding political upheaval surrounding a discredited video and allegations of undisclosed financial contributions from businessmen alleged to benefit either the government or the state. These developments have cast a shadow of uncertainty over the current administration’s handling of complex issues.

Responding to Criticism

When pressed about the recent critical statements made by DK President regarding the management of the electrical interconnection—criticism documented in recent reports—Damianous reaffirmed his stance. He asserted that, as long as the agreed governmental program is on track, the DK must maintain its role in the coalition, a position further supported by the administration’s strategy as detailed in official communications.

Collective Decision-Making and Party Discipline

When asked about the potential scenario in which the DK might oppose his view, Damianous stressed that any decision regarding government participation will be determined collectively by the party’s governing bodies. He emphasized his commitment to upholding these collective decisions, while personally advocating for the party’s continued inclusion in the coalition. His pledge is clear: should the party resolve to exit the government following the controversies, he will adhere to the collective mandate.

Reevaluating Cost Projections

During the interview, Damianous also called for updated financial analyses concerning the electrical interconnection project—a proposal previously contested by Nikolas Papadopoulos, who cited remarks from European Commissioner Jörgensen. According to Damianous, the economic parameters used in earlier cost estimates are outdated, highlighting the necessity for a revised review as the project progresses over the years.

The interview underscores the delicate balance between maintaining political alliances and addressing accountability in the midst of evolving fiscal and governance challenges.

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.

Uol
The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
Aretilaw firm
eCredo

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter