ALL INPredictions
Last updated Nov 29, 2025
Episodes / JD Vance's AI Speech, Techno-Optimists vs Doomers, Tariffs, AI Court Cases with Naval Ravikant
Back
Jason @ 01:24:40Inconclusive
aimarkets
Jason predicts that: (1) There is roughly a 5–10% probability that The New York Times will win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI in a decisive way that results in injunctions against OpenAI's current practices; and (2) the broader legal and business resolution of these copyright cases will resemble the Napster-to-Spotify transition, where major AI language model providers—especially closed-source ones—end up paying a substantial revenue share (on the order of 50–66%) to large content-rightsholders as part of negotiated licensing settlements.
I have a prediction here. I think this is all going to wind up wind up like the Napster Spotify case... I think that there is a non-zero chance, like it might be 5 or 10%, that OpenAI is going to lose the New York Times lawsuit, and they're going to lose it hard, and they're going to be injunctions. And I think it's the settlement might be that these language models, especially the closed ones, are going to have to pay some percentage in a negotiated settlement of their revenue, half to two thirds to the content holders.View on YouTube
Explanation

As of November 30, 2025, the key pieces of Jason’s prediction have not resolved in a way that lets us clearly mark it right or wrong.

  1. NYT v. OpenAI decisive loss + injunctions (given 5–10% probability)

    • The New York Times’ copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft is still ongoing. In April 2025, Judge Sidney Stein allowed the core copyright claims by the Times and other newspapers to proceed while dismissing some other claims; this was a procedural ruling, not a final judgment on the merits, and no broad injunctions on OpenAI’s practices have been issued. (apnews.com)
    • Docket activity from October–November 2025 shows the parties still litigating discovery disputes, with no final liability ruling or settlement recorded. (dockets.justia.com)
    • Because the case is unresolved and no “decisive win with injunctions” has occurred (nor been ruled out), we can’t evaluate whether assigning a 5–10% probability was well‑calibrated. Probabilistic forecasts of ongoing events generally can’t be scored until the outcome is known.

  2. Industry endgame: Napster→Spotify-style regime with 50–66% revenue share to rightsholders

    • Since early 2024, OpenAI and other AI companies have signed a series of licensing deals with major publishers (e.g., Axel Springer, Dotdash Meredith, News Corp, TIME, Financial Times, Vox, Le Monde, Prisa, Reuters). These deals involve lump‑sum or relatively modest annual payments, not a dominant share of AI providers’ total revenue. For example, reporting on OpenAI’s Axel Springer and Dotdash Meredith deals suggests figures on the order of $10–16 million per year, amounting to roughly ~1% or less of those publishers’ revenues and an even smaller fraction of OpenAI’s. (niemanlab.org)
    • Other arrangements, like Perplexity’s plan to share some advertising revenue with publishers whose content is cited, are still early-stage and framed as incremental revenue streams rather than a Spotify‑style commitment of half or more of platform revenue. (techcrunch.com)
    • Meanwhile, OpenAI’s major revenue‑sharing obligation is to Microsoft (around 20% of OpenAI revenue under their partnership, with discussion of reducing this over time), not to content rightsholders. (reuters.com)
    • The broader legal and business landscape for AI copyright (including suits by authors, music labels, and news organizations) remains in flux, with some settlements (e.g., in AI music) and many cases still active. (apnews.com)

Overall, while there is clear movement toward more licensing and some revenue sharing, nothing like a stable, Napster→Spotify-style regime where large, especially closed-source, AI model providers pay 50–66% of their revenue to content rightsholders has emerged by late 2025. At the same time, the ultimate structure of the market and the final outcomes of key lawsuits (including NYT v. OpenAI) are still undecided. Because both the specific legal outcome and the long‑run industry structure Jason is predicting are unresolved, the fairest status is **“inconclusive (too early)” rather than clearly right or wrong.