> Many other news publishers, including the Financial Times, the Associated Press and Axel Springer, have instead opted to strike paid deals with AI companies for millions of dollars annually, undermining the Times' argument that it should be compensated billions of dollars in damages<p>I would see this as strengthening, rather than undermining, the argument. The AI companies in those agreements are paying for something, which implies that the work both has value, and should be paid for.
Doesn’t this make sense? If your actions of copying content disrupt or prevent the content owner’s commercial practice, then it does seem like infringement.
Related article in the Times: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/business/media/newspapers-sued-microsoft-openai.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/business/media/newspapers...</a>
So ridiculous.<p>Every author ever has learned from, been inspired by and influenced by the books they've read before. Same for every poet, painter, musician, sculptor. So much so that it's a common interview question to ask such people about their influences.<p>But somehow, if it's AI instead of a human, the same behavior is supposed to be copyright infringement in the eyes of the greedy copyright cartel? Preposterous.