[ad_1]
Hold onto your hats, folks, because in the latest episode of “As The Corporate World Turns,” we’ve got Rupert Murdoch’s Dow Jones gearing up for a dramatic showdown against Perplexity, the generative AI company that seems to think “borrowing” without asking is the new normal. Yes, they’re suing over what they call “scraping”—a fancy term for when a tech whiz decides to snatch others’ hard work from the internet buffet without leaving a tip.
It seems Perplexity has been chugging down the Wall Street Journal and New York Post content like a kid in a candy store, using it to train its so-called “answer machine.” Apparently, this digital gremlin thinks it can whip up responses to user queries without paying for the ingredients. It’s like crashing your neighbor’s barbecue and claiming the hot dogs were always meant for you.
News Corp—who brought us fine literary gems like “Fox News” and “The Sun”—is not having it. They’re arguing that Perplexity is engaging in what could only be described as supreme freeloading. Robert Thomson, chief of News Corp., stated that their little AI pet is up to no good, “perpetrating an abuse of intellectual property” that’s as harmful to writers as if someone showed up to your desk and started eating your lunch right in front of you while laughing maniacally.
And while Thomson was on his soapbox, he threw in a colorful jab, claiming Perplexity has been shamelessly presenting “repurposed material” as if it were the original—a bit like that friend who “remixes” your favorite song but ends up with a haunting rendition of a cat meowing in a tunnel. “Skip the links?” he scoffed. “Sounds like they want to skip the check, too!”
Meanwhile, Perplexity is bobbing and weaving, clearly enjoying the spotlight, as they didn’t bother to respond immediately to requests for comment—perhaps they were busy crafting a fancy response made up entirely of quoted articles. Just perfecting their “big reveal” right before the lawsuit drops.
As we sail through this booming AI arms race, publishers are looking around nervously, believing that without some legal muscle, their rights are about as valuable as a coupon for a half-eaten sandwich. Some have decided to ‘cut a deal’ with the tech giants while others are clearly leaning into their inner litigator, hoping the prospect of cold hard cash from lawsuits will revive their failing business models.
In fact, not too long ago, News Corp tangoed with OpenAI in a deal reported to be worth over $250 million—because nothing screams “ethical engagement” quite like cash for content, right? Thomson couldn’t resist throwing shade over at Perplexity, labeling OpenAI as “principled” while slapping the upstart company with “content kleptocracy.” If “content kleptocracy” isn’t a band name, it sure should be.
Just to keep it spicy, less than a week ago, The New York Times also flung a cease-and-desist letter at Perplexity, demanding they play nice. They claimed they were enjoying some unwelcome windfall from using the paper’s meticulously crafted journalism without so much as a thank-you note. You know, the usual corporate romp filled with lawyers.
To wrap up this theatrical saga, we’ve got The New York Times apparently upset enough to also have taken OpenAI to court last year, asking for billions—because who doesn’t love a good ol’ courtroom drama when the stakes are so high? The absurdity runs deep, and when it comes to business squabbles, it’s just another Tuesday in the upside-down world of corporate America!
Source
