Microsoft Files Motion to Dismiss Parts of Lawsuit by The New York Times Company
In a legal battle that could have far-reaching implications for the use of artificial intelligence technology, Microsoft has filed a motion in federal court seeking to dismiss parts of a lawsuit brought by The New York Times Company.
The Times filed suit against Microsoft and its partner OpenAI, alleging that the companies had infringed on its copyrights by using its articles to train A.I. technologies like the chatbot ChatGPT. The lawsuit claimed that these chatbots were competing with the news outlet as a source of reliable information.
In response, Microsoft argued in its motion that the large language models (L.L.M.s) used to power chatbots did not supplant the market for news articles and other materials they were trained on. The tech giant compared these models to videocassette recorders, stating that both are allowed under the law.
This legal battle echoes past disputes, such as the case of movie studios suing Sony over its Betamax VCR in the late 1970s. Ultimately, the courts ruled that making personal copies of movies and television shows was fair use under the law.
Microsoft’s motion is similar to one made by OpenAI last week, with both companies seeking to have parts of the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that The Times did not show actual harm. The Times had argued that it was losing revenue from users who used Microsoft’s chatbot to research recommendations from its review site Wirecutter.
This lawsuit is significant as it is the first major American media company to sue over copyright issues related to generative A.I. technologies. Microsoft and OpenAI, like other A.I. companies, have built their technology by feeding it copyrighted material, claiming that they can legally use it to train their systems without paying for it.
The outcome of this legal battle could have implications for the future of A.I. technology and copyright law. Both Microsoft and The New York Times Company have not provided immediate comments on the matter, but it is clear that this case will be closely watched by industry experts and legal scholars alike.
