Microsoft Slammed for Building Copyright-Infringing Supercomputer for OpenAI in New Court Filing
7 86The New York Times alleges Microsoft actively encouraged OpenAI to steal its copyrighted work, reports Ars Technica, citing a new (and heavily redacted) court filing Thursday: NYT's motion comes after the [U.S.] Supreme Court sided with Cox Communications in a case where Sony tried and failed to claim that Cox was contributing to music piracy as an Internet service provider, which set a new standard for contributory infringement. Moving forward, plaintiffs will have to prove that parties intentionally acted to induce illegal conduct. Recognizing that the legal precedent has changed, the NYT now wants to amend its complaint to align its contributory infringement claim against Microsoft with that new standard... A Microsoft spokesperson told Ars that the company views the amended complaint as "a last-ditch effort by the plaintiff to save its claim from unfavorable precedent set in other recent rulings..."
The updated complaint seeks to specify that [Microsoft's] supercomputer was tailor-made to help OpenAI infringe and allege that it was built for the explicit purpose of training AI on copyrighted works without permission. And as the NYT alleged, its articles were more heavily weighted by this system, as both firms hoped to train models on the highest-quality journalism possible, so that level of writing could be confidently mimicked in outputs. By building this "unusually complex" machine, Microsoft not only helped select the works that were infringed but also provided a means to seize copyrighted works without permission, the NYT alleged. "Microsoft specifically designed it for the purpose of using essentially the whole Internet — curated to disproportionately feature Times Works — to train the most capable LLM in history," the NYT alleged... Similarly as problematic for the NYT are hallucinations where Microsoft and OpenAI models falsely cite the NYT for content that they never published... "Users who ask a search engine what The Times has written on a subject should be provided with neither an unauthorized copy nor an inaccurate forgery of a Times article, but a link to the article itself," the NYT alleged...
In a statement provided to Ars, OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri reiterated the AI firm's often-repeated claims that AI training on copyrighted works is indisputably fair use... OpenAI has argued that "ChatGPT is not a substitute for a Times subscription," the NYT reported, partly because "they transformed the material for a different use."
An OpenAI spokesperson told Ars Technica that OpenAI's models "empower innovation," while a New York Times spokesperson insisted that Microsoft "actively encouraged OpenAI to steal our copyrighted works... [O]ur core claims remain the same from the day we filed this lawsuit — that Microsoft and OpenAI stole millions of The Times's copyrighted works to compete with our products and illegally enrich themselves."
The article speculates that the case's most extreme outcome "could require OpenAI and Microsoft to wipe models and start over. The NYT has also asked for permanent injunctive relief to prevent future infringement, as well as extensive damages..."
7 comments
Innovation (Score: 5, Interesting)
by sit1963nz ( 934837 ) on Sunday June 28, 2026 @07:41PM (#66214748)
Why does innovation mean companies can steal material and think they can get away with it
Where as the rest of us would be bankrupted and seen some jail time.
Re:The suit is nonsense (Score: 5, Funny)
by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday June 28, 2026 @08:23PM (#66214798)
Training an AI is exactly the same as training a human mind
I dunno about that... for one thing, most humans don't confidently spout nonsense unless alcohol is involved.
My general patience and good will is gone (Score: 5, Interesting)
by BitterEpic ( 10503015 ) on Sunday June 28, 2026 @08:26PM (#66214802)
I do not have any faith in the companies of Silicon Valley to have the greater good in mind anymore. It's all about the money so this doesn't surprise me anymore.
Move fast and break things as progressively transitioned into fuck with people and don't give them to a choice to opt out. This ranges from robot-taxis blocking roads to scooters littering streets to AI glasses bringing surveillance so your data can be sold without your consent. Nope, you can't use money anymore so that your previous purchases can be used to sell targeted advertising spots with Google pay and Apple pay.
Silicon Valley needs some more regulation. I no longer give a shit about what new hype machine that have.
PSA; Stop giving money to homeless subscription pan handling. When you pay for a subscription, you just increase the behavior and with it more pan handling. The prices for hardware have gone up because of the fucktards who keep giving money to ChatGPT, Gemini etc. WE WHO DO NOT BUY THESE STUPID SERVICES have to deal with the increased prices because of idiots unable to show restraint. Good job fucking us over chumps.
Copyright? (Score: 5, Funny)
by dohzer ( 867770 ) on Sunday June 28, 2026 @11:07PM (#66214914)
You wouldn't download a supercomputer...
Re:Genie is not going back in the bottle (Score: 5, Informative)
by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Sunday June 28, 2026 @11:45PM (#66214958)
A court could absolutely order them to throw out a model. Perhaps you don't think it's likely to happen, but the law doesn't depend on what you think is likely. The court could also issue an injunction barring them from training future models on copyrighted material without permission. They also could grant damages.
Consider that Anthropic settled a similar case for $1.5 billion, which shows they thought they might lose a lot more if the case went to trial.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law (Score: 5, Interesting)
by Slashythenkilly ( 7027842 ) on Monday June 29, 2026 @12:42AM (#66214994)
To corporations with morally questionable officers, illegal business dealings are simply a calculated risk that can be written off in the loss column. It doesnt matter if its illegal dumping, stealing intellectual information, skirting import or labor laws, or sickening/killing a percentage its customers. If the truth is about to be uncovered, a corporate attorney hands over a check, a paper admitting no fault, and the recipient typically signs a non-disclosure agreement. Nobody goes to jail for or is accountable for the decisions made behind a desk because if they did, this bullshit would slow down or stop.
Crap in, crap out (Score: 5, Interesting)
by butt0nm4n ( 1736412 ) on Monday June 29, 2026 @05:12AM (#66215158)
Wild off the cuff guess stat. 80% of content being consumed by LLM is untrustworthy, opinion, wrong, brain farts. Just like what I am typing here.
Anyone who believes LLM will lead to Gen AI doesn't get the tech or has an incomplete definition of Gen AI. We really need a new Turing test, we kinda cheated the test with LLM, made a parrot instead of a person.
The principal flaw of LLM AI as a business is that producing content wasn't a problem we needed to solve. We were drowning in the stuff already.
LLMs give a great search and summary feature, but I don't see a way to monetise that with ads like google does without making the results even more dubious. For a subscription model, in my enterprise take up of co-pilot is low, don't know why, If I use my own experience, I've made apps I was told there was a business case for that turned out be very niche, low usage but high value, very specialist tools.
I work with a lot of ambitious go getters, who would I promote? The one who leans on AI to produce some samey looking dross, or the one who can innovate and communicate independently, think on their feet, surprise me and do more with less. If I've got a leader who is dependent on AI, that is a weak, compromised leader.
Then there is a phenomenal trust issue, many just don't trust big tech with sensitive data, and who can blame them, AI companies have no respect for copyright or IP. And the hidden cost, after paying the sky high subs, the cost of your employees labour validating AI answers and patching up flaky results improving the AI product for your competition too. And your employees getting dumber the more they use it.
Nope.
I don't doubt there are niche specialist applications to be exploited in legal and tech to get productivity and quality gains, but specialise and grow your own, don't help your competition by improving the general models . Don't end up dependent on a supplier, look how cloud is biting companies in the ass with fees. Once they get you hooked, they jack up the price. Bad strategy, you don't need more parasites.