The New York Times previously filed a lawsuit against these two companies, accusing them of using their articles to train ChatGPT's large language model and profiting from it.

In February of this year, OpenAI requested a federal judge to dismiss part of the copyright lawsuit, alleging that the newspaper used deceptive tactics to generate misleading evidence.

In the submitted documents, lawyers representing the tech giant quoted former head of the Motion Picture Association, Jack Valenti, who said, "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." They argued that this analogy is "techno-panic" and pointed out that the US Supreme Court ultimately rejected the motion based on the same reasoning.

Microsoft suggested that the VCR actually strengthened the entertainment industry by creating new revenue streams. Similar to OpenAI's counterclaim, the company also detailed its position on large language models, describing them as a breakthrough in the field of artificial intelligence.

Through its collaboration with OpenAI, Microsoft stated that its goal is to "help the public harness their extraordinary power" because it "believes that LLM has the ability to improve people's lives and work."

The Washington-based company also accused the news organization of incorrectly describing the copyright claims based on GPT model outputs as unfair enrichment under state law, implying that GPT-based tools encroach on "timeliness" news and Wirecutter's reviews.

What is The New York Times' response?

The partner at the law firm Susman Godfrey, representing The New York Times in this case, Ian Crosby, stated on March 6th, "Microsoft does not deny that it collaborated with OpenAI and copied millions of works from The New York Times without permission to build its tool."

"Instead, it oddly compares LLM to a VCR, even though VCR manufacturers never argued that massive copyright infringement was necessary to produce their products," he added.