I can see how someone can disagree with the NYT position but the idea that it lacks merit is wild!

AI might be the defining issue of copyright law for decades. There are so many open questions, and this seems like just the start.

> The question must be answered at some point.

agreed. in the same way Colorado supreme court ruled trump can't be on the ballot to force scotus to rule i think is the same reasoning here. get an answer earlier rather than later.

How is the question being asked different from the Google Books case?

You’re not just display the contents of copyrighted works publicly, they’re selling access. This flips the script for the 1st factor of the Fair Use test. Additionally, by selling it to people who use it to get news summaries, you can argue you damage the market for a NY Times subscription, which triggers the 4th factor.

I don't think anybody has claimed that OpenAI is causing NYT subscriptions to go up. NYT has even expressly made the claim they're losing potential revenue.

> [1] On the most important factor, possible economic damage to the copyright owner, [Judge] Chin wrote that "Google Books enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders."

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

For the good of the world, let's hope the NYT loses across the board. It's basically behaving like a copyright troll here.

I am of opposite opinion. I think it is unreasonable to train AI using copyrighted information without permission from the copyright holder, at least if it is done to create a proprietary product. It is probable even unreasonable if the end result would not be proprietary but at least that would benefit the world more.