7 ms·

I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't. But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are

I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't. But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product. In copyright cases, typically you need to show some kind of harm. This case is unusual because the New York Times can't point to any harm, so they have to trawl through private conversations OpenAI's customers have had with their service to see if they can find any. It's quite literally a fishing expedition.

Sherveen 1y ago
Yeah, everyone else in the comments so far is acting emotionally, but -- As a fan and DAU of both OpenAI and the NYT, this is just a weird discovery demand and there should be another pathway for these two to move fwd in this case (NYT to get some semblance of understanding, OAI protecting end-user privacy).
- totallymike 1y ago
  It sounds like the alternate path you're suggesting is for NYT to stop being wrong and let OpenAI continue being right, which doesn't sound much like a compromise to me.
Alex2037 1y ago
>But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private ...had never been private in the first place. not only is the data used for refining the models, OpenAI had also shariah policed plenty of people for generating erotica.
- IlikeKitties 1y ago
  > OpenAI had also shariah policed plenty of people for generating erotica. That framing is retorically brilliant if you think about it. I will use that more. Chat Sharia Law for Chat Control. Mass Sharia Surveillance from flock etc.
- mock-possum 1y ago
  Yeah I don’t get why more people don’t understand this - why would you think your conversation was private when it wasnt actually private. Have you not been paying attention.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  This is about private chats, which are not used for training and only stored for 30 days. Also, you need to understand, that for huge corps like OpenAI, the lying on your ToS will do orders of magnitude more damage to your brand than what you would gain through training on <1% more user chats. So no, they are not lying when they say they don't train on private chats.
  - bonsai_spool 1y ago
    > Also, you need to understand, that for huge corps like OpenAI, the lying on your ToS will do orders of magnitude more damage to your brand than what you would gain Is this true? I can’t recall anything like this (look at Ashley Madison which is alive and well)
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      It's not national news when a company is found to be doing what they say they are doing.
      - bonsai_spool 1y ago
        > It's not national news when a company is found to be doing what they say they are doing. You said there would be ‘orders of magnitude’ of brand damage. What is the proof?
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      I think it is hard to say because OpenAI is still heavily in development and working out their business model (and a reasonable complaint is that it is crazy to label them a massive success without seeing how they actually work when they need to make a profit). But, all that aside, it seems that OpenAI is aiming to be bigger and more integrated into the day-to-day life of the average person than Ashley Madison, right?
vintagedave 1y ago
100% agreed. In the time you wrote this, I also posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45901054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45901054 I felt quite some disappointment with the comments I saw on the thread at that time.
cogman10 1y ago
I get the feeling, but that's not what this is. NYTimes has produced credible evidence that OpenAI is simply stealing and republishing their content. The question they have to answer is "to what extent has this happened?" That's a question they fundamentally cannot answer without these chat logs. That's what discovery, especially in a copyright case, is about. Think about it this way. Let's say this were a book store selling illegal copies of books. A very reasonable discovery request would be "Show me your sales logs". The whole log needs to be produced otherwise you can't really trust that this is the real log. That's what NYTimes lawyers are after. They want the chat logs so they can do their own searches to find NYTimes text within the responses. They can't know how often that's happened and OpenAI has an obvious incentive to simply say "Oh that never happened". And the reason this evidence is relevant is it will directly feed into how much money NYT and OpenAI will ultimately settle for. If this never happens then the amount will be low. If it happens a lot the amount will be high. And if it goes to trial it will be used in the damages portion assuming NYT wins. The user has no right to privacy. The same as how any internet service can be (and have been) compelled to produce private messages.
- sroussey 1y ago
  > The user has no right to privacy. The same as how any internet service can be (and have been) compelled to produce private messages. This is nonsense. I’ve personally been involved in these things, and fought to protect user privacy at all levels and never lost.
  - giraffe_lady 1y ago
    You've successfully fought a subpoena on the basis of a third party's privacy? More than once? I'd love to hear more.
    - sroussey 1y ago
      I was CEO of a small startup called Network54 with about 4 million monthly users. It was a forum hosting service. The early 2000s were the heyday of lawsuits. People would say something about someone and if that someone was rich they would sue. It happened often. The attorneys would sue us, the domain registrar, the ISP, everyone. Often the things said were true. But they would sue to find out who the people were. People selling Ponzi schemes, CEOs of public companies trying to find what union employees to fire, it was all over the place. We would fire to quash every time. File to move venues to CA which has anti-slap laws. Depositions in DC. It was very distracting and expensive. Never lost. Made some people really mad that they didn’t get their way. Now for criminal things, the opposite, sorry. Two person operation and the FBI walks in your office with a warrant, then yes sir let me see the warrant first. If no warrant, then sorry sir come back with a warrant but we will take this as a notice to soft delete not hard delete content.
Workaccount2 1y ago
The original lawsuit has lots of examples of ChatGPT (3.5? 4?) regurgitating article...snippets. They could get a few paragraphs with ~80-90% perfect replication. But certainly not full articles, with full accuracy. This wasn't solid enough for a summary judgement, and it seems the labs have largely figured out how to stop the models from doing this. So it looks like NYT wants to comb all user chats rather than pay a team of people tens of thousands a day to try an coax articles out of ChatGPT-5.
jcranmer 1y ago
> In copyright cases, typically you need to show some kind of harm. NYT is suing for statutory copyright infringement. That means you only need to demonstrate that the copyright infringement, since the infringement alone is considered harm; the actual harm only matters if you're suing for actual damages. This case really comes down to the very unsolved question of whether or not AI training and regurgitation is copyright infringement, and if so, if it's fair use. The actual ways the AI is being used is thus very relevant for the case, and totally within the bounds of discovery. Of course, OpenAI has also been engaging this lawsuit with unclean hands in the first place (see some of their earlier discovery dispute fuckery), and they're one of the companies with the strongest "the law doesn't apply to US because we're AI and big tech" swagger.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  NYT doesn't care about regurgitation. When it was doable, it was spotty enough that no one would rely on it. But now the "trick" doesn't even work anymore (you would paste the start of an article and chatgpt would continue it). What they want is to kill training, and more over, prevent the loss of being the middle-man between events and users.
  - totallymike 1y ago
    > prevent the loss of being the middle-man between events and users I'm confused by this phrase. I may be misreading but it sounds like you're frustrated, or at least cynical about NYT wanting to preserve their business model of writing about things that happen and selling the publication. To me it seems reasonable they'd want to keep doing that, and to protect their content from being stolen. They certainly aren't the sole publication of written content about current events, so calling them "the middle-man between events and users" feels a bit strange. If your concern is that they're trying to prevent OpenAI from getting a foot in the door of journalism, that confuses me even more. There are so, so many sources of news: other news agencies, independent journalists, randos spreading word-of-mouth information. It is impossible for chatgpt to take over any aspect of being a "middle-man between events and users" because it can't tell you the news. it can only resynthesize journalism that it's stolen from somewhere else, and without stealing from others, it would be worse than the least reliable of the above sources. How could it ever be anything else? This right here feels like probably a good understanding of why NYT wants openai to keep their gross little paws off their content. If I stole a newspaper off the back of a truck, and then turned around and charged $200 a month for the service of plagiarizing it to my customers, I would not be surprised if the Times's finest lawyers knocked on my door either. Then again, I may be misinterpreting what you said. I tend to side with people who sue LLM companies for gobbling up all their work and regurgitating it, and spend zero effort trying to avoid that bias
troyvit 1y ago
It's a part of privacy policy boilerplate that if a company is compelled by the courts to give up its logs it'll do it. I'm sure all of OpenAI's users read that policy before they started spilling their guts to a bot, right? Or at least had an LLM summarize it for them?
- Rastonbury 1y ago
  This is it isn't it? For any technology, I don't think anyone should have the expectation of privacy from lawyers if the company who has your data is brought to court
Noaidi 1y ago
To show harm they need the proof, this is the point of the lawsuit. They have sufficient evidence that OpenAI was scraping the web and the NY Times. When Altman says "They claim they might find examples of you using ChatGPT to try to get around their paywall." he is blatantly misrepresenting the case. https://smithhopen.com/2025/07/17/nyt-v-openai-microsoft-ai-copyright-lawsuit-update-2025/ https://smithhopen.com/2025/07/17/nyt-v-openai-microsoft-ai-... "The lawsuit focuses on using copyrighted material for AI training. The NYT says OpenAI and Microsoft copied vast amounts of its content. They did this to build generative AI tools. These tools can output near-exact copies of NYT articles. Therefore, the NYT argues this breaks copyright laws. It also hurts journalism by skipping paywalls and cutting traffic to original sites. The complaint shows examples where ChatGPT mimics NYT stories closely. This could lead to money loss and harm from AI errors, called hallucinations." This has nothing to do with the users, it has everything to do with OpenAI profiting off of pirated copyrighted material. Also, Altmans is getting scared because the NY Times proved to the judge that CahtGPT copied many articles: "2025 brings big steps in the case. On March 26, 2025, Judge Sidney Stein rejected most of OpenAI’s dismissal motion. This lets the NYT’s main copyright claims go ahead. The judge pointed to “many” examples of ChatGPT copying NYT articles. He found them enough to continue. This ruling dropped some side claims, like unfair competition. But it kept direct and contributory infringement, plus DMCA breaches."
- rpdillon 1y ago
  Training has sometimes been held to be fair use under certain circumstances, but in determining fair use, one of the four factors that is considered is how it affects the market for the work being infringed. I would expect that determining to what degree it's regurgitating the New York Times' content is part of that analysis.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  > The lawsuit focuses on using copyrighted material for AI training Well that's going to go pretty poorly for them considering it has already been ruled fair use twice: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-district-judges-rule-using-books-train-ai-fair-use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr... On the other hand, distributing copies of NYT content is actually a breach of copyright, but only if the NYT can prove it was actually happening.
otterley 1y ago
> This case is unusual because the New York Times can't point to any harm It helps to read the complaint. If that was the case, the case would have been subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted) challenge and closed. Complaint: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec2023.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20... See pages 60ff.
- rpdillon 1y ago
  My observation is that section does not articulate any harm. It _claims_ harm, but doesn't actually explain what the harm is. Reduced profits? Lower readership? All they say is "OpenAI violated our copyrights, and we deserve money." > 167. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringing conduct alleged herein, The Times has sustained and will continue to sustain substantial, immediate, and irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless Defendants’ infringing conduct is enjoined by this Court, Defendants have demonstrated an intent to continue to infringe the copyrighted works. The Times therefore is entitled to permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining Defendants’ ongoing infringing conduct. > 168. The Times is further entitled to recover statutory damages, actual damages, restitution of profits, attorneys’ fees, and other remedies provided by law. They're simply claiming harm, nothing more. I want to see injuries, scars, and blood if there's harm. As far as I can tell, the NYT was on the ropes long before AI came along. If they could actually articulate any harm, they wouldn't need to read through everyone's chats.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    > sustain substantial, immediate, and irreparable Furthermore, any alleged injury is absolutely reparable. How many times did OpenAI replicate their content and how many page views did they lose to it? Very reparable monetary damages, if it did in fact occur (and I'm pretty sure it didn't).
  - otterley 1y ago
    > As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringing conduct alleged herein, The Times has sustained and will continue to sustain substantial, immediate, and irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless Defendants’ infringing conduct is enjoined by this Court, Defendants have demonstrated an intent to continue to infringe the copyrighted works. The Times therefore is entitled to permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining Defendants’ ongoing infringing conduct. This is boilerplate language in a claim seeking injunctive relief. In contract law in law school, you learn there's a historical difference between cases at law (where the only remedy is money) and cases in equity (where the court can issue injunctions). If you want to stop someone from violating your rights, you claim "irreparable injury" (that is, money isn't enough) and ask for the court in equity to issue an injunction. > It _claims_ harm, but doesn't actually explain what the harm is. Reduced profits? Lower readership? All they say is "OpenAI violated our copyrights, and we deserve money." Copyright violation, in and of itself, constitutes a judicially cognizable injury. It's a violation of a type of property right - that is, the right to exclude others from using your artistic works without your permission. The Copyright Act specifies that victims of copyright infringement are not only entitled to an injunction, but also to statutory damages as well as compensatory damages to be determined by a jury. See 17 U.S.C. § 504. Similarly, you don't have to claim a specific injury in a garden-variety trespass action. The violation of your property rights is enough.
themafia 1y ago
> having with OpenAI in private I don't blieve that OpenAI, or any American corporation, has the wherewithal to actually maintain _your_ privacy in the face of _their_ profitability. > typically you need to show some kind of harm. You copied my material without my permission. I've been harmed. That right is independent of pricing. Otherwise Napster would never have generated legal cases. > It's quite literally a fishing expedition. It's why American courts are awesome.
stocksinsmocks 1y ago
No doubt. I’m sure NYT sees an opportunity to buy a few more years of life support by pickpocketing the conductor of the AI gravy train. When Sam Altman and the Sulzbergers fight though, as a normal person, my hope is that they destroy each other. I think the winner are Chinese (and by extension OSS) models as they can ignore copyright. A net win, I think.
phendrenad2 1y ago
> This would allow them to access millions of user conversations that are unrelated to the case It feels like the NYT is really fishing for inside information on how GPT is used so they can run statistical analysis and write articles about it. I.E. if they find examples of racism, they can get some great articles about how racism is rampant on GPT or something.
ozgrakkurt 1y ago
It is better if it is out in the open compared to just some select few diabolical organizations having access to it

Sherveen 1y ago

Yeah, everyone else in the comments so far is acting emotionally, but -- As a fan and DAU of both OpenAI and the NYT, this is just a weird discovery demand and there should be another pathway for these two to move fwd in this case (NYT to get some semblance of understanding, OAI protecting end-user privacy).

totallymike 1y ago
It sounds like the alternate path you're suggesting is for NYT to stop being wrong and let OpenAI continue being right, which doesn't sound much like a compromise to me.

Alex2037 1y ago

>But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private ...had never been private in the first place. not only is the data used for refining the models, OpenAI had also shariah policed plenty of people for generating erotica.

IlikeKitties 1y ago
> OpenAI had also shariah policed plenty of people for generating erotica. That framing is retorically brilliant if you think about it. I will use that more. Chat Sharia Law for Chat Control. Mass Sharia Surveillance from flock etc.
mock-possum 1y ago
Yeah I don’t get why more people don’t understand this - why would you think your conversation was private when it wasnt actually private. Have you not been paying attention.
Workaccount2 1y ago
This is about private chats, which are not used for training and only stored for 30 days. Also, you need to understand, that for huge corps like OpenAI, the lying on your ToS will do orders of magnitude more damage to your brand than what you would gain through training on <1% more user chats. So no, they are not lying when they say they don't train on private chats.
- bonsai_spool 1y ago
  > Also, you need to understand, that for huge corps like OpenAI, the lying on your ToS will do orders of magnitude more damage to your brand than what you would gain Is this true? I can’t recall anything like this (look at Ashley Madison which is alive and well)
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    It's not national news when a company is found to be doing what they say they are doing.
    - bonsai_spool 1y ago
      > It's not national news when a company is found to be doing what they say they are doing. You said there would be ‘orders of magnitude’ of brand damage. What is the proof?
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    I think it is hard to say because OpenAI is still heavily in development and working out their business model (and a reasonable complaint is that it is crazy to label them a massive success without seeing how they actually work when they need to make a profit). But, all that aside, it seems that OpenAI is aiming to be bigger and more integrated into the day-to-day life of the average person than Ashley Madison, right?

vintagedave 1y ago

100% agreed. In the time you wrote this, I also posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45901054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45901054 I felt quite some disappointment with the comments I saw on the thread at that time.

cogman10 1y ago

I get the feeling, but that's not what this is. NYTimes has produced credible evidence that OpenAI is simply stealing and republishing their content. The question they have to answer is "to what extent has this happened?" That's a question they fundamentally cannot answer without these chat logs. That's what discovery, especially in a copyright case, is about. Think about it this way. Let's say this were a book store selling illegal copies of books. A very reasonable discovery request would be "Show me your sales logs". The whole log needs to be produced otherwise you can't really trust that this is the real log. That's what NYTimes lawyers are after. They want the chat logs so they can do their own searches to find NYTimes text within the responses. They can't know how often that's happened and OpenAI has an obvious incentive to simply say "Oh that never happened". And the reason this evidence is relevant is it will directly feed into how much money NYT and OpenAI will ultimately settle for. If this never happens then the amount will be low. If it happens a lot the amount will be high. And if it goes to trial it will be used in the damages portion assuming NYT wins. The user has no right to privacy. The same as how any internet service can be (and have been) compelled to produce private messages.

sroussey 1y ago
> The user has no right to privacy. The same as how any internet service can be (and have been) compelled to produce private messages. This is nonsense. I’ve personally been involved in these things, and fought to protect user privacy at all levels and never lost.
- giraffe_lady 1y ago
  You've successfully fought a subpoena on the basis of a third party's privacy? More than once? I'd love to hear more.
  - sroussey 1y ago
    I was CEO of a small startup called Network54 with about 4 million monthly users. It was a forum hosting service. The early 2000s were the heyday of lawsuits. People would say something about someone and if that someone was rich they would sue. It happened often. The attorneys would sue us, the domain registrar, the ISP, everyone. Often the things said were true. But they would sue to find out who the people were. People selling Ponzi schemes, CEOs of public companies trying to find what union employees to fire, it was all over the place. We would fire to quash every time. File to move venues to CA which has anti-slap laws. Depositions in DC. It was very distracting and expensive. Never lost. Made some people really mad that they didn’t get their way. Now for criminal things, the opposite, sorry. Two person operation and the FBI walks in your office with a warrant, then yes sir let me see the warrant first. If no warrant, then sorry sir come back with a warrant but we will take this as a notice to soft delete not hard delete content.

Workaccount2 1y ago

The original lawsuit has lots of examples of ChatGPT (3.5? 4?) regurgitating article...snippets. They could get a few paragraphs with ~80-90% perfect replication. But certainly not full articles, with full accuracy. This wasn't solid enough for a summary judgement, and it seems the labs have largely figured out how to stop the models from doing this. So it looks like NYT wants to comb all user chats rather than pay a team of people tens of thousands a day to try an coax articles out of ChatGPT-5.

jcranmer 1y ago

> In copyright cases, typically you need to show some kind of harm. NYT is suing for statutory copyright infringement. That means you only need to demonstrate that the copyright infringement, since the infringement alone is considered harm; the actual harm only matters if you're suing for actual damages. This case really comes down to the very unsolved question of whether or not AI training and regurgitation is copyright infringement, and if so, if it's fair use. The actual ways the AI is being used is thus very relevant for the case, and totally within the bounds of discovery. Of course, OpenAI has also been engaging this lawsuit with unclean hands in the first place (see some of their earlier discovery dispute fuckery), and they're one of the companies with the strongest "the law doesn't apply to US because we're AI and big tech" swagger.

Workaccount2 1y ago
NYT doesn't care about regurgitation. When it was doable, it was spotty enough that no one would rely on it. But now the "trick" doesn't even work anymore (you would paste the start of an article and chatgpt would continue it). What they want is to kill training, and more over, prevent the loss of being the middle-man between events and users.
- totallymike 1y ago
  > prevent the loss of being the middle-man between events and users I'm confused by this phrase. I may be misreading but it sounds like you're frustrated, or at least cynical about NYT wanting to preserve their business model of writing about things that happen and selling the publication. To me it seems reasonable they'd want to keep doing that, and to protect their content from being stolen. They certainly aren't the sole publication of written content about current events, so calling them "the middle-man between events and users" feels a bit strange. If your concern is that they're trying to prevent OpenAI from getting a foot in the door of journalism, that confuses me even more. There are so, so many sources of news: other news agencies, independent journalists, randos spreading word-of-mouth information. It is impossible for chatgpt to take over any aspect of being a "middle-man between events and users" because it can't tell you the news. it can only resynthesize journalism that it's stolen from somewhere else, and without stealing from others, it would be worse than the least reliable of the above sources. How could it ever be anything else? This right here feels like probably a good understanding of why NYT wants openai to keep their gross little paws off their content. If I stole a newspaper off the back of a truck, and then turned around and charged $200 a month for the service of plagiarizing it to my customers, I would not be surprised if the Times's finest lawyers knocked on my door either. Then again, I may be misinterpreting what you said. I tend to side with people who sue LLM companies for gobbling up all their work and regurgitating it, and spend zero effort trying to avoid that bias

troyvit 1y ago

It's a part of privacy policy boilerplate that if a company is compelled by the courts to give up its logs it'll do it. I'm sure all of OpenAI's users read that policy before they started spilling their guts to a bot, right? Or at least had an LLM summarize it for them?

Rastonbury 1y ago
This is it isn't it? For any technology, I don't think anyone should have the expectation of privacy from lawyers if the company who has your data is brought to court

Noaidi 1y ago

To show harm they need the proof, this is the point of the lawsuit. They have sufficient evidence that OpenAI was scraping the web and the NY Times. When Altman says "They claim they might find examples of you using ChatGPT to try to get around their paywall." he is blatantly misrepresenting the case. https://smithhopen.com/2025/07/17/nyt-v-openai-microsoft-ai-copyright-lawsuit-update-2025/ https://smithhopen.com/2025/07/17/nyt-v-openai-microsoft-ai-... "The lawsuit focuses on using copyrighted material for AI training. The NYT says OpenAI and Microsoft copied vast amounts of its content. They did this to build generative AI tools. These tools can output near-exact copies of NYT articles. Therefore, the NYT argues this breaks copyright laws. It also hurts journalism by skipping paywalls and cutting traffic to original sites. The complaint shows examples where ChatGPT mimics NYT stories closely. This could lead to money loss and harm from AI errors, called hallucinations." This has nothing to do with the users, it has everything to do with OpenAI profiting off of pirated copyrighted material. Also, Altmans is getting scared because the NY Times proved to the judge that CahtGPT copied many articles: "2025 brings big steps in the case. On March 26, 2025, Judge Sidney Stein rejected most of OpenAI’s dismissal motion. This lets the NYT’s main copyright claims go ahead. The judge pointed to “many” examples of ChatGPT copying NYT articles. He found them enough to continue. This ruling dropped some side claims, like unfair competition. But it kept direct and contributory infringement, plus DMCA breaches."

rpdillon 1y ago
Training has sometimes been held to be fair use under certain circumstances, but in determining fair use, one of the four factors that is considered is how it affects the market for the work being infringed. I would expect that determining to what degree it's regurgitating the New York Times' content is part of that analysis.
terminalshort 1y ago
> The lawsuit focuses on using copyrighted material for AI training Well that's going to go pretty poorly for them considering it has already been ruled fair use twice: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-district-judges-rule-using-books-train-ai-fair-use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr... On the other hand, distributing copies of NYT content is actually a breach of copyright, but only if the NYT can prove it was actually happening.

otterley 1y ago

> This case is unusual because the New York Times can't point to any harm It helps to read the complaint. If that was the case, the case would have been subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted) challenge and closed. Complaint: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec2023.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20... See pages 60ff.

rpdillon 1y ago
My observation is that section does not articulate any harm. It _claims_ harm, but doesn't actually explain what the harm is. Reduced profits? Lower readership? All they say is "OpenAI violated our copyrights, and we deserve money." > 167. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringing conduct alleged herein, The Times has sustained and will continue to sustain substantial, immediate, and irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless Defendants’ infringing conduct is enjoined by this Court, Defendants have demonstrated an intent to continue to infringe the copyrighted works. The Times therefore is entitled to permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining Defendants’ ongoing infringing conduct. > 168. The Times is further entitled to recover statutory damages, actual damages, restitution of profits, attorneys’ fees, and other remedies provided by law. They're simply claiming harm, nothing more. I want to see injuries, scars, and blood if there's harm. As far as I can tell, the NYT was on the ropes long before AI came along. If they could actually articulate any harm, they wouldn't need to read through everyone's chats.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  > sustain substantial, immediate, and irreparable Furthermore, any alleged injury is absolutely reparable. How many times did OpenAI replicate their content and how many page views did they lose to it? Very reparable monetary damages, if it did in fact occur (and I'm pretty sure it didn't).
- otterley 1y ago
  > As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringing conduct alleged herein, The Times has sustained and will continue to sustain substantial, immediate, and irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless Defendants’ infringing conduct is enjoined by this Court, Defendants have demonstrated an intent to continue to infringe the copyrighted works. The Times therefore is entitled to permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining Defendants’ ongoing infringing conduct. This is boilerplate language in a claim seeking injunctive relief. In contract law in law school, you learn there's a historical difference between cases at law (where the only remedy is money) and cases in equity (where the court can issue injunctions). If you want to stop someone from violating your rights, you claim "irreparable injury" (that is, money isn't enough) and ask for the court in equity to issue an injunction. > It _claims_ harm, but doesn't actually explain what the harm is. Reduced profits? Lower readership? All they say is "OpenAI violated our copyrights, and we deserve money." Copyright violation, in and of itself, constitutes a judicially cognizable injury. It's a violation of a type of property right - that is, the right to exclude others from using your artistic works without your permission. The Copyright Act specifies that victims of copyright infringement are not only entitled to an injunction, but also to statutory damages as well as compensatory damages to be determined by a jury. See 17 U.S.C. § 504. Similarly, you don't have to claim a specific injury in a garden-variety trespass action. The violation of your property rights is enough.

themafia 1y ago

> having with OpenAI in private I don't blieve that OpenAI, or any American corporation, has the wherewithal to actually maintain _your_ privacy in the face of _their_ profitability. > typically you need to show some kind of harm. You copied my material without my permission. I've been harmed. That right is independent of pricing. Otherwise Napster would never have generated legal cases. > It's quite literally a fishing expedition. It's why American courts are awesome.

stocksinsmocks 1y ago

No doubt. I’m sure NYT sees an opportunity to buy a few more years of life support by pickpocketing the conductor of the AI gravy train. When Sam Altman and the Sulzbergers fight though, as a normal person, my hope is that they destroy each other. I think the winner are Chinese (and by extension OSS) models as they can ignore copyright. A net win, I think.

phendrenad2 1y ago

> This would allow them to access millions of user conversations that are unrelated to the case It feels like the NYT is really fishing for inside information on how GPT is used so they can run statistical analysis and write articles about it. I.E. if they find examples of racism, they can get some great articles about how racism is rampant on GPT or something.

ozgrakkurt 1y ago

It is better if it is out in the open compared to just some select few diabolical organizations having access to it