TL;DR
A Reddit user argues the NO FAKES Act (S.1367) would create a liability trigger for developers who distribute models or code that can produce digital replicas, potentially exposing open-source authors to statutory damages. The post urges constituents to push for a Safe Harbor carving out code/tool repositories from liability and shares email and phone scripts to contact lawmakers.
What happened
A post on Reddit's LocalLLaMA forum raised alarms about the NO FAKES Act (listed on Congress.gov as S.1367) and its potential impact on open-source AI projects. The poster, writing under the handle PostEasy7183, summarized the bill as creating a new right around "digital replicas" of voices and likenesses and flagged language that could hold anyone who "makes available" a tool primarily used for replicas liable. The post asserts that hosting raw model weights or voice-conversion tools on repositories such as HuggingFace could expose developers to statutory damages and that Section 230 protections would not apply. The author provided concrete advocacy steps — a short email template and a phone script to contact Senators — and urged supporters to press lawmakers to add a Safe Harbor for code repositories. Commenters on the thread debated where liability should fall, warned about innovation flight, and discussed the political dynamics that might favor large cloud providers over independent developers.
Why it matters
- If accurate, the bill's wording could deter developers from publishing models or weights, shrinking publicly available AI tools.
- Smaller teams and independent researchers could face legal and financial risks that larger firms can better absorb, altering market dynamics.
- A lack of clarity around liability could push innovation offshore if US-based open-source contributors withdraw.
- Policymaking that does not distinguish between operators and tool authors may have unintended consequences for research, education, and hobbyist communities.
Key facts
- The Reddit post appears on r/LocalLLaMA and was published by user PostEasy7183.
- The post references the NO FAKES Act as S.1367 in the 119th Congress (2025-2026) and links to a Congress.gov entry.
- The author describes the bill as creating a "digital replica right" for voices and likenesses and flags a "making available" liability trigger.
- The post claims that developers who publish TTS or voice-conversion model weights could face statutory damages of $5,000–$25,000 per violation if their tools are used to create replicas.
- The author contends Section 230 does not protect developers under this bill; that position is presented as the poster's interpretation.
- The post urges constituents to contact lawmakers and provides an email template and a phone script, including a suggestion to mention Senators Wyden and Massie.
- Commenters on the thread debate whether liability should fall on tool authors or on service operators and warn of potential "innovation flight."
- The poster and several commenters call for a Safe Harbor that would shield code and repositories from liability meant for operators.
What to watch next
- Whether Congress amends S.1367 to include a specific Safe Harbor for code repositories and tool developers (not confirmed in the source).
- How legislative or regulatory language will define who "makes available" a digital replica tool (not confirmed in the source).
- Potential industry or civic responses, including lobbying by open-source communities and cloud providers (not confirmed in the source).
Quick glossary
- Digital fingerprinting: A method intended to mark or identify digital content or tools so their origin or modifications can be traced; specifics vary by proposal and implementation.
- Safe Harbor: A legal provision that shields a class of actors from liability under specified conditions, often used to protect intermediaries or developers from downstream misuse.
- Section 230: A U.S. statutory provision that generally limits the liability of online platforms for third-party content; its scope and applicability are subject to legal interpretation and legislative change.
- TTS (Text‑to‑Speech): Technology that converts written text into spoken audio using synthesized voices.
- RVC (Retrieval‑based Voice Conversion): A class of voice-conversion methods that transform one speaker's voice to match another's characteristics; used in research and creative applications.
Reader FAQ
Does the NO FAKES Act already make open-source developers legally liable?
The Reddit post claims the bill's language could impose liability on developers who "make available" tools, but that interpretation and actual legal effects are not confirmed in the source.
What can individuals do right now?
The poster provided an email template and a phone script to contact members of Congress and suggested using services like Democracy.io or calling the Capitol switchboard; these are advocacy suggestions contained in the post.
Are the statutory damages figures cited in the post official?
The post mentions $5,000–$25,000 per violation as potential statutory damages; that figure is presented as the author's claim and is not independently confirmed in the source.
Is there bipartisan support or opposition mentioned?
The thread references Senators Wyden (D) and Massie (R) in an advocacy context, but the post does not provide a comprehensive account of congressional support or opposition.
Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. BECOME A REDDITOR and join one of thousands of communities. × 310 The NO FAKES Act has a "Fingerprinting" Trap that…
Sources
- The No Fakes Act Has a "Fingerprinting" Trap That Kills Open Source
- The NO FAKES Act is a real threat to free expression
- AI and publicity rights: The No Fakes Act strikes a chord
- NO FAKES Act: AI deepfakes protection or internet freedom …
Related posts
- China signals probe into Meta’s acquisition of AI firm Manus
- Logistics Is Dying — Why Mail and Parcel Delivery Are Breaking Down
- Testimony Says ICE Agent in Renee Good Shooting Served as Firearms Trainer