The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman did call open-web content “freeware” in a June 2024 interview—but he was describing his view of a social contract, not announcing a legal rule. He also said websites that explicitly barred scraping beyond search indexing were a gray area likely to be resolved in court. Whether AI training on particular material is lawful depends on the facts and the applicable law; being publicly accessible does not automatically make content free to copy.
What did Suleyman say?
In a June 2024 CNBC interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Suleyman was asked about whether AI companies had effectively taken intellectual property to train models. He responded that the “social contract” for material already on the open web had been that people could copy, recreate, and reproduce it, calling that material “freeware.” Windows Central’s account of the interview reproduces his remarks.
He then drew a distinction for publishers and websites that had explicitly said not to scrape or crawl their content for purposes other than search indexing. Suleyman called that situation a “gray area” that would work its way through the courts. The qualification matters: his comments did not say that every page on the web could be used for any purpose without restriction.
The phrase “scrape and steal” in the original headline is a characterization of the remarks, not a legal finding or Suleyman’s complete position. His “freeware” label was his own description of a supposed social understanding, not a court ruling or a definition in copyright law.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
Does public access make web content free to use for AI training?
No. A work being accessible on the open web does not, by itself, establish that copying it for AI training is fair use or otherwise lawful. Under U.S. law, fair use is a case-specific doctrine. The U.S. Copyright Office describes it as a judge-created doctrine codified in the 1976 Copyright Act; it is not interchangeable with the informal label “freeware.” See the Copyright Office Fair Use Index.
The Copyright Office describes four statutory factors that courts weigh together rather than apply as a mechanical checklist:
- Purpose and character of the use: This includes whether the use is commercial or nonprofit educational, among other considerations.
- Nature of the copyrighted work: The character of the work is part of the analysis.
- Amount and substantiality used: Courts consider how much was used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
- Market effect: Courts consider the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the work.
The factors can point in different directions, and the details of the particular work and use matter. The Copyright Office describes fair use as an affirmative defense; a developer’s belief that its use is fair does not settle the question.
What is established about AI-training copyright disputes?
The Copyright Office’s May 9, 2025 pre-publication report, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI Training, described dozens of U.S. lawsuits as pending at that time and discussed competing views on licensing, innovation, and effects on creators. That is a dated description, not a current tally. The report is a government analysis, not a decision resolving whether a particular developer is liable. The Office’s AI materials page provides access to the report and related updates.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesThe Copyright Office’s Fair Use Index, last updated in July 2026, includes AI-related cases with differing outcomes. It is a collection of decisions, not a complete count of all AI litigation or a binding synthesis that decides every training use. Its Fair Use Index page also cautions that it is not a substitute for legal advice.
The Office received over 10,000 comments in response to its 2023 AI notice of inquiry. That number measures submissions to the agency; it does not establish whether AI training is lawful or unlawful.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What should creators and publishers take from the remarks?
Suleyman’s comments are useful as a statement of one executive’s position and his distinction between general open-web material and explicit restrictions on scraping. They do not determine the rights of an individual creator, publisher, or AI developer. For a specific dispute, relevant questions include what material was copied, how it was used, what restrictions or permissions applied, and how the use affects the work’s market. The legal outcome can depend on those facts and the applicable law.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
