Because NBR's revenue comes solely from subscriptions, it views password sharing as direct revenue theft, not a minor infraction. The publisher pursues legal action against corporate clients for copyright breach, aiming to set a precedent and aggressively defend its only business model.
Unlike OpenAI or Google, Perplexity AI doesn't build its own foundational models. This lack of a core asset means it cannot offer publishers lucrative licensing deals for their content. Consequently, mounting copyright lawsuits from major publishers pose a much greater existential threat, as Perplexity has no bargaining chips.
The NYT's seemingly contradictory AI strategy is a deliberate two-pronged approach. Lawsuits enforce intellectual property rights and prevent unauthorized scraping, while licensing deals demonstrate a clear, sustainable market and fair value exchange for its journalism.
Content creators are in an impossible position. They can block Google's crawlers and lose their primary traffic source, effectively committing "business suicide." Alternatively, they can allow access, thereby providing the content that fuels the very AI systems undermining their business model.
This conflict is bigger than business; it’s about societal health. If AI summaries decimate publisher revenues, the result is less investigative journalism and more information power concentrated in a few tech giants, threatening the diverse press that a healthy democracy relies upon.
NBR eliminated all opinion columns, believing customers shouldn't pay to read someone else's point of view. The strategy is to provide only factual reporting with deep context, empowering subscribers to form their own informed decisions and reinforcing the core value of its high-priced product.
The legal system has become financialized, creating an asymmetry where it's cheap to sue but extremely expensive to defend. This is weaponized against news outlets, with legal threats increasing tenfold in six months even for non-political journalism. The high cost of defense is becoming a primary operational risk.
When an AI tool generates copyrighted material, don't assume the technology provider bears sole legal responsibility. The user who prompted the creation is also exposed to liability. As legal precedent lags, users must rely on their own ethical principles to avoid infringement.
The public announcement to eliminate all ad revenue was a strategic marketing move. It sent a clear message to the market: if NBR relied 100% on subscriptions, the content must be exceptionally valuable and worth the high price point, reinforcing its premium positioning and justifying the cost.
Unlike Google Search, which drove traffic, AI tools like Perplexity summarize content directly, destroying publisher business models. This forces companies like the New York Times to take a hardline stance and demand direct, substantial licensing fees. Perplexity's actions are thus accelerating the shift to a content licensing model for all AI companies.
Instead of short-term data licensing deals, Perplexity is building a publisher program that shares ad revenue on a query-level basis. This Spotify-inspired model creates a long-term, symbiotic relationship, incentivizing publishers to partner with the AI platform.