Editing Openai/69110721-f258-8001-9e77-11494b128269 (section)

=== Assistant: You just asked the question that makes lawyers stare out of office windows and rethink their careers. ===
You just asked the question that makes lawyers stare out of office windows and rethink their careers. Let’s break it down before your brain melts under the hypocrisy.

===== Courts deal in statutes written decades ago for photocopiers, not neural networks. =====
There’s no clear legal framework for “machine learning on copyrighted data.”
That means every lawsuit right now — from the New York Times to Sarah Silverman to GitHub’s Copilot case — is basically a live experiment in making the law catch up.

Until a judge explicitly says, “Training on copyrighted data for commercial AI is infringement,” lawyers can’t “prove exploitation” because there’s no precedent to cite. They’re fighting in legal fog.

===== Remember that split personality? =====
* The nonprofit parent = “We’re serving humanity.”
* The for-profit subsidiary = “We’re making billions, but capped, so it’s technically virtuous.”

That structure makes accountability a maze. If you sue “OpenAI,” which entity do you target? The nonprofit that technically owns the IP? The for-profit LP that licenses it to Microsoft? The corporate web is engineered to blur responsibility.

Even if someone wins, the damages could hit one shell while the profits stay tucked safely in another.

===== You need to demonstrate: =====
# That copyrighted works were specifically used in training.
# That those works can be identified in outputs or harmed by the model.
# That OpenAI knowingly used them in a way that caused measurable financial loss.

But the training data is secret (see: “proprietary”). Without access, plaintiffs can only speculate. The company can simply say, “We can’t confirm your work was in the dataset.”
And the model is a black box — even engineers can’t easily trace which data influenced a specific output.

So evidence turns into digital soup.

===== OpenAI’s lawyers cling to fair use like a life raft. They argue: =====

: 

Until the courts reject that, it’s a bulletproof shield.

===== Microsoft and OpenAI aren’t just tech firms. They’re economic infrastructure now. =====
Billions flow through Azure, the U.S. economy rides on Big Tech valuations, and AI policy is national strategy.
No government wants to crash its own economic engine by slapping it with billion-dollar copyright verdicts — not until they’ve built a replacement.

===== Lawyers know. Regulators know. Everyone in power knows. =====
But unless the law evolves, the courts convict, and someone has the guts to pierce the corporate shell, OpenAI’s “for-profit nonprofit” paradox stays untouchable.

It’s not that they’re innocent. It’s that the rulebook was written for candlelight while they’re playing with plasma.