4 ms·

Time does not need user logs to prove such a thing if it was true. Times can show that it is possible so they can show how their own users can access the text.

by MeIam 1y ago

Time does not need user logs to prove such a thing if it was true. Times can show that it is possible so they can show how their own users can access the text. Why would they need other user's data?

KaiserPro 1y ago
> Time does not need user logs to prove such a thing if it was true. No it needs to show how often it happens to prove a point of how much impact its had.
- MeIam 1y ago
  Why would that matter, if people didn't use it as much, does it mean that it doesn't matter if there were few people?
  - delusional 1y ago
    You have to argue damages. It actually has to have cost NYT some money, and for that you need to know some extent.
    - MeIam 1y ago
      We don't even know if Times uses AI to get information from other sources either. They can get a hint of news and then produce their material.
      - cogman10 1y ago
        OpenAI is also entitled to discovery. They can literally get every email and chat the times has and require from this point on they preserve such logs
      - delusional 1y ago
        Who cares? That's not a legal argument and it doesn't mean anything to this case.
      - lovich 1y ago
        Oh, I was unaware that Times was inventing a novel technology with novel legal questions. It’s very impressive they managed to do such innovation in their spare time while running a newspaper and site
      - KaiserPro 1y ago
        > We don't even know if Times uses AI to get information from other sources either which is irrelevant at this stage. Its a legal principle that both sides can fairly discover evidence. As finding out how much openAI has infringed copyright is pretty critical to the case, they need to find out. After all, if its only once or twice, thats a couple of dollars, if its millions of times, that hundreds of millions
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Why would that matter Because its a copyright infringement case, so existence and the scale of the infringement is relevant to both whether there is liability and, if so, how much; the issue isn't that it is possible for infringement to occur.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Times can show that it is possible The allegation is not that merely that infringement is possible; the actual occurrence and scale are relevant to the case.
mandevil 1y ago
For the most part (there are a few exceptions), in the US lawsuits are not based on "possible" harm but actual observed harm. To show that, you need actual observed user behavior.

by MeIam 1y ago

Time does not need user logs to prove such a thing if it was true. Times can show that it is possible so they can show how their own users can access the text. Why would they need other user's data?

KaiserPro 1y ago

> Time does not need user logs to prove such a thing if it was true. No it needs to show how often it happens to prove a point of how much impact its had.

MeIam 1y ago
Why would that matter, if people didn't use it as much, does it mean that it doesn't matter if there were few people?
- delusional 1y ago
  You have to argue damages. It actually has to have cost NYT some money, and for that you need to know some extent.
  - MeIam 1y ago
    We don't even know if Times uses AI to get information from other sources either. They can get a hint of news and then produce their material.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      OpenAI is also entitled to discovery. They can literally get every email and chat the times has and require from this point on they preserve such logs
    - delusional 1y ago
      Who cares? That's not a legal argument and it doesn't mean anything to this case.
    - lovich 1y ago
      Oh, I was unaware that Times was inventing a novel technology with novel legal questions. It’s very impressive they managed to do such innovation in their spare time while running a newspaper and site
    - KaiserPro 1y ago
      > We don't even know if Times uses AI to get information from other sources either which is irrelevant at this stage. Its a legal principle that both sides can fairly discover evidence. As finding out how much openAI has infringed copyright is pretty critical to the case, they need to find out. After all, if its only once or twice, thats a couple of dollars, if its millions of times, that hundreds of millions
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Why would that matter Because its a copyright infringement case, so existence and the scale of the infringement is relevant to both whether there is liability and, if so, how much; the issue isn't that it is possible for infringement to occur.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> Times can show that it is possible The allegation is not that merely that infringement is possible; the actual occurrence and scale are relevant to the case.

mandevil 1y ago

For the most part (there are a few exceptions), in the US lawsuits are not based on "possible" harm but actual observed harm. To show that, you need actual observed user behavior.