NYT Unlikely to Prevail in Copyright Suit; Misunderstanding of Copyright Laws and Red Herrings
Recent discussions have spotlighted a lawsuit the New York Times filed against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringements. However, upon closer examination, the case seems to stand on shaky ground, primarily due to a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright laws and numerous red herrings.
The Essence of Copyright Law
Copyright law is designed to prevent the unauthorized reproduction or near-exact duplication of original content for commercial purposes. This is where the distinction lies. Copyright isn't about licensing knowledge or learning methodologies; it's about protecting the original expression of ideas. For instance, writers don’t pay royalties to learn writing styles from established authors, nor do athletes seek permission to study the techniques of their predecessors.
The Flaw in Licensing Training Data
The proposition that entities like OpenAI should license training data from sources like the New York Times misunderstands the purpose of copyright law. Learning, whether by humans or machines, is a natural process that occurs by interacting with the world. To equate this with copyright infringement is a stretch.
Questionable Arguments in the Lawsuit
Several points raised in the lawsuit seem more like attempts at misdirection than substantial legal arguments:
Financial Gains and Stock Values: Drawing parallels between Microsoft's financial growth and the training data used by OpenAI is an overreach. Stock valuations do not directly correlate with the specific use of training data in AI models.
The Public Good Value Argument: Asserting the societal value of journalism as a justification for copyright claims in AI training seems irrelevant. The lawsuit's attempt to link the societal impact of reporting with the financial valuation of AI models doesn't hold up under legal scrutiny.
Allegations of Verbatim Output: Claims that GPT models produce exact outputs of Times content appear exaggerated. The AI community has noted the difficulty in replicating these alleged outputs, suggesting that the examples might be manipulated or misrepresented.
Potential Outcomes
Given these factors, the lawsuit seems to follow a pattern similar to previous cases, like the Sarah Silverman case, where a lack of understanding of AI and overblown copyright claims led to their downfall. The most probable outcome might be an out-of-court settlement, potentially involving a licensing fee for ongoing training data. However, this would set a concerning precedent, suggesting that payment is required for training data without a clear legal ruling, thereby perpetuating a misunderstanding of copyright laws and AI technology.
The New York Times' case against OpenAI seems to be built on a weak foundation of legal misunderstandings and irrelevant arguments. As AI continues to evolve, it's crucial to distinguish between genuine copyright infringement and the natural process of learning and knowledge acquisition, whether by humans or machines.
