Description
The latest filing in In re OpenAI Copyright Infringement Litigation raises a big question: what happens when the Supreme Court eliminates your charge in the middle of a case?
After Cox v. Sony, the News Plaintiffs acknowledge that their material-contribution theory of contributory copyright infringement is done for. They were forced to remove that claim. Victory!
But unsatisfied with that, they've asked the court for permission to amend their complaint yet again—this time adding inducement and "tailored-to-infringement" theories.
Trouble is, that's not what Cox permits.
In this video, I walk through Microsoft's opposition and explain why it argues:
• Cox eliminated one theory—it didn't create new ones.
• The proposed inducement and tailored-to-infringement claims have existed for years.
• Plaintiffs had the chance to add the claims long ago and possessed the underlying evidence long before the amendment deadline.
• Rule 16 requires diligence, not simply a convenient new litigation strategy.
• Allowing these amendments now would unfairly prejudice Microsoft after fact discovery has closed and summary judgment is approaching.
Should a Supreme Court decision destroying one of your counts allow you to add new ones on at the 11th hour?
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [REDACTED] – #1590, Att. #2 in In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation (S.D.N.Y., 1:25-md-03143) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69879510/1590/2/in-re-openai-inc-copyright-infringement-litigation/
Opposition Brief – #1621 in In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation (S.D.N.Y., 1:25-md-03143) – https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69879510/1621/in-re-openai-inc-copyright-infringement-litigation/
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
💬Bᴏɢᴏsɪᴛʏ Dɪꜱᴄᴏʀᴅ: https://discord.bogosity.tv/
💬Lᴏʀᴅ Kɪʟʟɪᴀɴ’ꜱ Dɪꜱᴄᴏʀᴅ: http://bit.ly/LK-Discord
▶️YᴏᴜTᴜʙᴇ: https://www.youtube.com/shanedk
▶️Oᴅʏsᴇᴇ: https://odysee.com/%24/invite/@shanedk:4
▶️Rᴜᴍʙʟᴇ https://rumble.com/c/shanedk
💬Dɪꜱᴄᴏʀᴅ: http://bit.ly/LK-Discord
💰Dᴏɴᴀᴛᴇ ᴏʀ ꜱᴜʙꜱᴄʀɪʙᴇ: https://donate.bogosity.tv
0:00 - Preview
0:51 - Intro
1:29 - Count I: Copyright Infringement (Fair Use!)
2:31 - Count III: Contributory Copyright Infringement
4:02 - Begging the Question to Use Cox to End-Run Around Fair Use
5:31 - Microsoft's Response
7:45 - They Already Had a Chance to Charge These and Didn't
8:29 - In Fact, They Specifically Said They WEREN'T Making Those Charges!
9:26 - "Inducement" and "Tailored to Infringement" Were Viable Charges Since 2005
12:08 - The New York Times Is Now Doing What They Expressly Said They Wouldn't!
13:08 - Cox Has the Content Cartels Flailing!