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?
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.
> 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
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.
