The New York Times sues OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement | CNN Business
edition.cnn.com
The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, alleging that the companies’ artificial intelligence technology illegally copied millions of Times articles to train ChatGPT and other services to provide people with information – technology that now competes with the Times.

The New York Times sues OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement::The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, alleging that the companies’ artificial intelligence technology illegally copied millions of Times articles to train ChatGPT and other services to provide people with information – technology that now competes with the Times.

  • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    11 months ago

    Oh I’m sure, and it was a good article to be clear. But “the legal side of things”, especially from a certain perspective, and what the courts (and then the legislature) do with a new-ish issue can be different things.

    • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      “Kit worked at the law firm of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, litigating patent, trademark, and copyright cases in courts across the country. Kit holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School”

      The EFF is primarily a legal group and the post straight up mentions that it is a legal opinion on the topic.

      So I’m not really clear what “the legal side of things” is that you mean separate from what a lawyer who has litigated IP cases before and works focused on the intersection of law and tech says about a pending case in a legal opinion.

      Do you just mean a different opinion from different lawyers?

      • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Yea. Legal opinions vary and legal scholars can have problems, sometimes massive, with what courts and legislators end up doing. “Legal side of things”, in quotes, was intended to convey a cynicism/critique of the idea, belief or even desire some might have (not saying you) for the law to be “settled” and clear.

      • Kilgore Trout@feddit.itEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        I assume they mean that on topics not thoroughly tested in court, a judge can always make up their own mind based on how they personally feel.