But NYT content is reporting on events truthfully to the public without any fiction or lies.
Since there can be only one truth it should not matter whether NYT or Washington Post or ChatGPT is spinning it out.
Unless NYT is claiming they don't report truth and publishes fiction.
That is of concern since, NYT claims to reporth news truthfully.
So is NYT scamming Americans hundreds of millions of dollars by charging for subscription fees by making a false promise on things that they report?
This should be the bigger question here.
I dont think that's accurate.
The Copyright Act, § 103, allows copyright protection for "compilations (of facts)", as long as there is some "creative" or "original" act involved in developing the compilation, such as in the selection (deciding which facts to include or exclude) and arrangement (how facts are displayed and in what order).
Unless you're telling me ChatGPT has eyes and sources just like the NYT and is worrying events as it sees them too?
How is reporting on an event different from reporting on discovering a scientific law?
If it didn't have value, Microsoft would lose nothing by no longer ingesting it.
Stolen from whom? Journalists who got reported got paid. The owner is a billionaire. I don't understand your logic.
Does NYT pays money to the people/countries etc it uses to as subject to create content(NEWS)? Isn't that stealing then?
Also their website TOS didn't prohibit LLMs from using their data.
Copyright on scientific papers is most definitely a thing, by the way.
Now the question is whether did OpenAI violate the terms of service by using the bits transferred from NYT to train their LLM. I don't think their TOS had LLMs mentioned. So it's on NYT to be negligent and not update their TOS right?
> ...owner...
> Does NYT pays money to the people/countries etc it uses to as subject to create content(NEWS)? Isn't that stealing then?
No, that's why in my reply to "facts like happenings in the world are not copyrightable" I emphasised do the work. Journalism is a job. Happenings do not just fall onto the page.
> Also their website TOS didn't prohibit LLMs from using their data.
This is just lazy. We have rule of law. Individuals don't need to write "don't break law X" to be protected by them. And nytimes does in fact have copyright symbols on its pages - not that it needs them.
New York times made it ridiculously easy for anyone to access their content by putting it in WWW for making money from page impressions. And they started ingesting links of their content to social media, search engines, etc.
And now they are acting surprised someone used the content to train an LLM.
Should have done their job in the first place to prevent it from training LLMs and make it less.
But they didn't because that affects their page impressions and ad views.
Because the more open the content the more money they make everyone click on a link and see the ad.
You can't have it both ways.
If you do gambling by making content so open so you can get more views from ads, you also get to enjoy the consequences and not cry like a baby asking for billions by making stupid decisions in the first place.