The American Way: Loose the Legal Eagles! AI, Gray Lady, AI.
December 29, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
With the demands of the holidays, I have been remiss in commenting upon the festering legal sores plaguing the “real” news outfits. Advertising is tough to sell. Readers want some stories, not every story. Subscribers churn. The dead tree version of “real” news turn yellow in the windows of the shrinking number of bodegas, delis, and coffee shops interested in losing floor space to “real” news displays.
A youthful senior manager enters Dante’s fifth circle of Hades, the Flaming Legal Eagles Nest. Beelzebub wishes the “real” news professional good luck. Thanks, MSFT Copilot, I encountered no warnings when I used the word “Dante.” Good enough.
Google may be coming out of the dog training school with some slightly improved behavior. The leash does not connect to a shock collar, but maybe the courts will provide curtail some of the firm’s more interesting behaviors. The Zuckbook and X.com are news shy. But the smart software outfits are ripping the heart out of “real” news. That hurts, and someone is going to pay.
Enter the legal eagles. The target is AI or smart software companies. The legal eagles says, “AI, gray lady, AI.”
How do I know? Navigate to “New York Times Sues OpenAI, Microsoft over Millions of Articles Used to Train ChatGPT.” The write up reports:
The New York Times has sued Microsoft and OpenAI, claiming the duo infringed the newspaper’s copyright by using its articles without permission to build ChatGPT and similar models. It is the first major American media outfit to drag the tech pair to court over the use of stories in training data.
The article points out:
However, to drive traffic to its site, the NYT also permits search engines to access and index its content. "Inherent in this value exchange is the idea that the search engines will direct users to The Times’s own websites and mobile applications, rather than exploit The Times’s content to keep users within their own search ecosystem." The Times added it has never permitted anyone – including Microsoft and OpenAI – to use its content for generative AI purposes. And therein lies the rub. According to the paper, it contacted Microsoft and OpenAI in April 2023 to deal with the issue amicably. It stated bluntly: "These efforts have not produced a resolution."
I think this means that the NYT used online search services to generate visibility, access, and revenue. However, it did not expect, understand, or consider that when a system indexes content, that content is used for other search services. Am I right? A doorway works two ways. The NYT wants it to work one way only. I may be off base, but the NYT is aggrieved because it did not understand the direction of AI research which has been chugging along for 50 years.
What do smart systems require? Information. Where do companies get content? From online sources accessible via a crawler. How long has this practice been chugging along? The early 1990s, even earlier if one considers text and command line only systems. Plus the NYT tried its own online service and failed. Then it hooked up with LexisNexis, only to pull out of the deal because the “real” news was worth more than LexisNexis would pay. Then the NYT spun up its own indexing service. Next the NYT dabbled in another online service. Plus the outfit acquired About.com. (Where did those writers get that content?” I know the answer, but does the Gray Lady remember?)
Now with the success of another generation of software which the Gray Lady overlooked, did not understand, or blew off because it was dealing with high school management methods in its newsroom — now the Gray Lady has let loose the legal eagles.
What do I make of the NYT and online? Here are the conclusions I reached working on the Business Dateline database and then as an advisor to one of the NYT’s efforts to distribute the “real” news to hotels and steam ships via facsimile:
- Newspapers are not very good at software. Hey, those Linotype machines were killers, but the XyWrite software and subsequent online efforts have demonstrated remarkable ways to spend money and progress slowly.
- The smart software crowd is not in touch with the thought processes of those in senior management positions in publishing. When the groups try to find common ground, arguments over who pays for lunch are more common than a deal.
- Legal disputes are expensive. Many of those engaged reach some type of deal before letting a judge or a jury decide which side is the winner. Perhaps the NYT is confident that a jury of its peers will find the evil AI outfits guilty of a range of heinous crimes. But maybe not? Is the NYT a risk taker? Who knows. But the NYT will pay some hefty legal bills as it rushes to do battle.
Net net: I find the NYT’s efforts following a basic game plan. Ask for money. Learn that the money offered is less than the value the NYT slaps on its “real” news. The smart software outfit does what it has been doing. The NYT takes legal action. The lawyer engage. As the fees stack up, the idea that a deal is needed makes sense.
The NYT will do a deal, declare victory, and go back to creating “real” news. Sigh. Why? Microsoft has more money and can tie up the matter in court until Hell freezes over in my opinion. If the Gray Lady prevails, chalk up a win. But the losers can just up their cash offer, and the Gray Lady will smile a happy smile.
Stephen E Arnold, December 29, 2023
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
