Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This case is unusual because the New York Times can't point to any harm It helps to read the complaint. If that was the case, the case would have been subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted) challenge and closed. Complaint: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20... See pages 60ff.
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 inju…
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.