[dangus]

Viewing copyrighted materials is basically never the problem. When we read The Verge we aren’t redistributing any of their content. We are doing exactly what they are granting a limited license to do: read the articles and use them for non-commercial purposes.

See section 14 of The Verge’s terms of use as an example: https://www.voxmedia.com/legal/terms-of-use

Free use can only override some of this: for example, I can use content from The Verge if I’m using a limited percentage of it for the purpose of critique and discussion. This application of fair use is basically the for-profit business model of YouTube channels like WatchMojo, which use small clips of movies and TV along with commentary and critique. Without that commentary or without limiting their redistribution to small portions of the work, they would be breaking copyright law.

The problem is redistribution of a substantial portion of the work. The NYT has allegedly found some very damning instances where ChatGPT provided answers containing substantial almost unchanged portions of text directly copied from NYT articles. NYT never granted ChatGPT any license to redistribute their content for commercial purposes, and it doesn’t seem like ChatGPT is doing anything covered by fair use (such as providing discussion or commentary).

I’m not aware of any part of copyright law that gives an infringing party a pass just because someone pressured them into infringement.