First sentence of second paragraph of the lawsuit: “Defendants’ unlawful use of The Times’s work to create artificial intelligence products that compete with it threatens The Times’s ability to provide that service.” First sentence of p7: “The Times objected after it discovered that Defendants were using Times content without permission to develop their models and tools.”
I think it’s ultimately about whether training on copyrighted content is legal or not.
Here are some other quotes from the lawsuit that approach it from a different angle: “These tools also wrongly attribute false information to The Times.” “By providing Times content without The Times’s permission or authorization, Defendants’ tools undermine and damage The Times’s relationship with its readers and deprive The Times of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue.”
Even if the first argument fails, if the second argument wins, it still boils down to not being able to train on copyrighted content unless it is possible to train on copyrighted data without ultimately quoting that content or attributing anything to the author of that content. My (uneducated) guess is that’s not possible.
I think it’s ultimately about whether training on copyrighted content is legal or not.
Here are some other quotes from the lawsuit that approach it from a different angle: “These tools also wrongly attribute false information to The Times.” “By providing Times content without The Times’s permission or authorization, Defendants’ tools undermine and damage The Times’s relationship with its readers and deprive The Times of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue.”
Even if the first argument fails, if the second argument wins, it still boils down to not being able to train on copyrighted content unless it is possible to train on copyrighted data without ultimately quoting that content or attributing anything to the author of that content. My (uneducated) guess is that’s not possible.