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?
No it needs to show how often it happens to prove a point of how much impact its had.
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.
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
It’s very impressive they managed to do such innovation in their spare time while running a newspaper and site
The allegation is not that merely that infringement is possible; the actual occurrence and scale are relevant to the case.