My observation is that section does not articulate any harm. It _claims_ harm, but doesn't actually explain what the harm is. Reduced profits? Lower readership? All they say is "OpenAI violated our copyrights, and we deserve money."

> 167. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringing conduct alleged herein, The Times has sustained and will continue to sustain substantial, immediate, and irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless Defendants’ infringing conduct is enjoined by this Court, Defendants have demonstrated an intent to continue to infringe the copyrighted works. The Times therefore is entitled to permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining Defendants’ ongoing infringing conduct. > 168. The Times is further entitled to recover statutory damages, actual damages, restitution of profits, attorneys’ fees, and other remedies provided by law.

They're simply claiming harm, nothing more. I want to see injuries, scars, and blood if there's harm. As far as I can tell, the NYT was on the ropes long before AI came along. If they could actually articulate any harm, they wouldn't need to read through everyone's chats.

> As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringing conduct alleged herein, The Times has sustained and will continue to sustain substantial, immediate, and irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless Defendants’ infringing conduct is enjoined by this Court, Defendants have demonstrated an intent to continue to infringe the copyrighted works. The Times therefore is entitled to permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining Defendants’ ongoing infringing conduct.

This is boilerplate language in a claim seeking injunctive relief. In contract law in law school, you learn there's a historical difference between cases at law (where the only remedy is money) and cases in equity (where the court can issue injunctions). If you want to stop someone from violating your rights, you claim "irreparable injury" (that is, money isn't enough) and ask for the court in equity to issue an injunction.

> It _claims_ harm, but doesn't actually explain what the harm is. Reduced profits? Lower readership? All they say is "OpenAI violated our copyrights, and we deserve money."

Copyright violation, in and of itself, constitutes a judicially cognizable injury. It's a violation of a type of property right - that is, the right to exclude others from using your artistic works without your permission. The Copyright Act specifies that victims of copyright infringement are not only entitled to an injunction, but also to statutory damages as well as compensatory damages to be determined by a jury. See 17 U.S.C. § 504.

Similarly, you don't have to claim a specific injury in a garden-variety trespass action. The violation of your property rights is enough.

Very much appreciate the clarification and nuance here. I understand that legally they don't have to provide any of this detail, but I'm also somewhat astonished that there doesn't appear to be any evidence that they've been harmed in any way other than them claiming that they are.

It’s because 1/the damages aren’t clearly articulable and would be speculative at the time of filing, and 2/they don’t have to claim the specific nature of the injury at this point in the case.

> sustain substantial, immediate, and irreparable

Furthermore, any alleged injury is absolutely reparable. How many times did OpenAI replicate their content and how many page views did they lose to it? Very reparable monetary damages, if it did in fact occur (and I'm pretty sure it didn't).