> As the lawsuit makes clear, this isn’t some high and mighty fight for journalism. It’s a negotiating ploy<p>This I find disingenuous. If I bake a bread and you take it without asking, it's my turn to state what I want: maybe I don't care, maybe I just want you don't do it again, maybe I want you to give it back, maybe I want you to pay, and maybe I want you to pay for the bread plus an extra for my troubles. In a world where almost everything is arbitrated by money it's not extraordinary to demand a monetary compensation for the efforts that it takes to write a newspaper article, and we're not even talking about the quality or even the veracity of said articles; the New York Times makes it quite clear that they don't put their texts out there for grabs, and some data trawler decided those texts were good enough for their nets.<p>I'm not even saying that whoever trawled the data must pay dollars; I'm not the judge. I just say that techdirt's author uses are very strange point of view here.<p>> if you think that generative AI can do serious journalism better than a massive organization with a huge number of reporters, then, um, you deserve to go out of business.<p>This is so besides the point<p>> It’s a false belief that reading something (whether by human or machine) somehow implicates copyright. This is false.<p>Well somewhere between "I accidentally saw your headlines while waiting for the bus" and (probably both of) (1) "I reprinted millions of your articles without asking you" or (2) "I downloaded millions of your articles and processed them in order to further my business" one can <i>guess</i> there will be judges who do draw a line beyond which copyright law does come in.