iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Enforcing copyright doesn't stop or even slow AI. It just means getting permission to use it. "The DOJ’s policy pronouncements cannot override the court’s duty to apply statutory fair use factors as Congress enacted them." /10 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

150 0

"The funds to pay copyright owners for their content are readily available to all of these companies." /9

130 0

DOJ said paying copyright owners could threaten AI competition. Absurd. NYT answers politely: these are among the largest companies in the world spending billions (on compute, data centers, chips and electricity). The funds are available. Duh (my word). /8

150 0

NYT asks the question DOJ avoids: if this policy decimates newsrooms, who reports the news? Are we going to trust generative AI companies to hire their own internal news corps and consolidate control over information? ahem, doom loop. /7

170 0

The US Copyright Office also concluded copying expressive works to generate unrestricted competing content, where licensing is reasonably available, is unlikely to qualify as fair use. That is part of the market harm question. Judge Chhabria noted it, too, despite spin on it. /6

160 0

The Copyright Office already rejected the claim that "to train AI models is inherently transformative [simply] because it is not for expressive purposes." Its words: "We view this argument as mistaken." Ahem, that totally undercuts DOJ’s core argument. /5

170 0

DOJ’s "fair use analysis" conflicts directly with *our own US Copyright Office*. DOJ says AI training is "extraordinarily transformative." The Copyright Office closely examined the facts and reached the opposite conclusion on the key questions. /4

181 0

DOJ leaned on White House's increasingly lonely *policy*: unimpeded AI development, data centers, national security...China, China, China. NYT answered back clearly: the Executive can advocate policy but courts shouldn't weigh these preferences against clear legal principles. /3

171 0

This problem for DOJ lines up with MSFT/OpenAI's same problems -> the evidence comes from inside their own houses. So copyright expertise comes from the US Copyright Office just as admissions on substitution, theft, and the “doom loop” came from OpenAI/Microsoft’s own people. /2

193 0

Jason Kint @kint.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

Oomph, DofJustice. NYT’s just filed response after DOJ [wrongly] inserted itself in OpenAI/MSFT case. Kicks off w/ line DOJ won't be able to avoid: DOJ's statement asks court to ignore US Copyright Office blessing what Defendants themselves called “the largest theft of labor in human history.” /1

2166 0

Wow, you’ve outdone yourself, Daily News, courtesy of brutally candid Microsoft employee quote unsealed. Red box is mine.

075 0

Jason Kint @kint.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

Journos may appreciate this kicker. /14 www.niemanlab.org/2026/09/an-a...

25211 0

And to be clear, I read through MSFT's unsealed SJ, too. Nothing of substance unsealed outside of plaintiffs news witnesses saying GAI isn't the same as what journalists are capable of. Duh. They're using it as a lay term rather than the legal meaning. /11

137140 0

two different paragraphs, two different sections but encourage you to click and read the unsealed (pink) of both of them together. And stop and think about the impact and harm to news media and civil society. /8

4884175 0

this is a super damning bit where OpenAI and Microsoft's own highly compensated experts (Tucker a regular big tech expert often Facebook/privacy cases) back up substitution, traffic reduction harms, and the distinction from search. /7

168690 0

touche. "Defendants do not dispute that the reason ChatGPT and Copilot are 'good at news' is because they trained on stolen news content." /6

4988168 0

Maybe unlike OpenAI, Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella seems to understand the law and why OpenAI would be breaking it. Maybe he gets ethics, too. Interestingly they still swapped data sets as "horse trading" as this damaging but descriptive term was redacted everywhere. /5

478985 0

Blood boiling. Not a good look for OpenAI or Greg Brockman here: "ah nice" in response to "a hack to get around nytimes paywall" in his efforts "to scrape" The Times website. After many points on his bragging about OpenAI's substitution for news. /4

71111186 0

Not good, OpenAI. "Read this NYTimes" article.. "Summarize" this NYTimes article... (NYT content in red). /3

386795 0

Straight from OpenAI's Brockman and Microsoft's Nadella - 'doom loop' for the entire web [as they vacuum up and substitute the work of journalism and threaten their economic foundations]. /2

51471296 0

Jason Kint @kint.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

Eye popping. Court just unsealed Summary Judgment motions in New York Times v OpenAI / Microsoft. Easy to see why the AI companies had so many redactions (pink). Their own people wrote the lede for NYT, the "largest theft of labor in human history"... "more and more substitutive..." /1

4253912348 0

USvGoogle Part II. Been answering inbounds all day but tried to cover the nuance with a full statement here. Happy to unpack it, we obviously need to wait for the unseal. It's a bad take to simply suggest this is a declining biz no one cares about (including Google). It matters much.

1105 0

btw, it's worth noting this graph in the complaint as it's inclusive of Meta/Facebook PR (Stone)'s response while Meta was apparently working to get her silenced... and it's now an allegation of Meta disparaging her in violation of the separation agreement.

164 0

Here is a link to 57pg complaint. Apparently, Meta has chased her for even sitting silent not even discussing them or her book as @superwuster.bsky.social @carolecadwalla.bsky.social noted after panel. I'll let you read the publicly available complaint storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

121 0

whoa. this may also be a reason Meta reportedly wants to keep CEO Zuckerberg from having to testify to Senate. Former executive Wynn-Williams, long muzzled by Meta, has filed a lawsuit in NdCal, inclusive of her explosive allegations against Sheryl Sandberg and Joel Kaplan.

1168 0

Oh no. Negative attention from potentially harming millions of American children. Cry me a river. Big tobacco is a fair comparison. Bring it, Congress. Don’t let him get away with this. Even his UFC presence was calculated. 2/2 www.politico.com/news/2026/06...

0173 0

Jason Kint @kint.bsky.social · 22/06/2026

This deserves tremendous attention if the White House and committee staff truly save Zuckerberg from testifying over child safety in the same months his company is repeatedly found liable by juries. He may pay billions but gets saved from public shame. 1/2

22114 0

good ad. well worth the 20 seconds.

12116 0

Jason Kint @kint.bsky.social · 22/06/2026

Facebook. Unsealed. "The fact that we train on pirated sites such as Anna's Archive is likely to be viewed negatively..." "Mark [Z] has been engaging with high-level govt officials on...our AI strategy, including Sec. Raimondo and NSA Jake Sullivan." 1/2

2123 0

Jason Kint @kint.bsky.social · 25/05/2026

NYT out with a jaw dropping investigative report on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 60 Minutes reported last Sunday on some of this, too. The NYT report is a must-read, the 60 Minutes report should then be watched. 1/3

32313 0

this exchange with court may come back to haunt Facebook. It came when Judge Ross when he showed up after years of Facebook obfuscations and made Facebook’s day...at odds with NdCal and all evidence I had seen in the case. It took years but the appellate court effectively put all back in play. /4

0112 0

Pretty cute Meta was trying to argue DC has no jurisdiction over Mark Zuckerberg even if they have it w/ Facebook. Even though all along they have noted the buck stops with Zuckerberg and he controls 60% of voting stock plus arguably his entire board as we learned in Delaware. /3

181 0

The MZ lawsuit was just transferred to same court as another Facebook case that began to unearth super sensitive evidence (tied to same cover-up that led to record class settlement in CA, shareholder settlement in DE last year, record settlement with FTC and SEC = totaling $6B+). /2

160 0

The first regulator who tried to hold Mark Zuckerberg personally liable for the cover-up tied to the massive data control issues that grabbed the globe’s attention with Cambridge Analytica- is back in business tomorrow. This is the original NYT headline. Same lawsuit. Stay now lifted. /1

2226 0

Melanie apparently sent him back to another employee who had (mostly) found a way to torrent copyright materials in bulk without sharing "seeding" them back upstream to others. The back and forth on circumvention of copyright law and abusing it is textbook Zuckerberg/Facebook. /5

261 0

So after the back and forth he goes back to the executive and says "Subject: Hey Melanie, I'm feeling quite uncomfortable with this task." /4

141 0

See Van Der Linde was apparently asked by superiors to torrent an illegal database full of known copyrighted material which is "not very legal" and he also groks that just making sure their LLM doesn't reproduce a "Copyright New York Times 2022" ain't too kosher either. /3

151 0

As I read it, there are two improper redactions of employee (Van Der Linde) concerns at the top which we will get to see. They come shortly before a response from response by Meta exec, Melanie Kambadur, "Let's start a thread with our legal team." So what were his concerns? /2

131 0