zlacker

Try selling subscriptions to your print-outs.

>>mrkeen+(OP)
The equivalent analogy here is selling subscriptions to the printer, not the specific copyright infringing printout.

>>jncfhn+E
I hope HP isn't seeing this

>>jncfhn+E
I disagree. A printer is too neutral - it's just a tool, like roads or the internet. Third parties can use them to commit copyright infringement, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) reflect on the seller of the tool.

I propose it's more like selling a music player that comes preloaded with (remixes of) recording artists' songs.

>>mrkeen+b3
It is neutral though. That’s the whole point. You have to twist its arm with great intention to recreate specific things. Sufficient intention that it’s really on you at that point.

>>jncfhn+34
It’s not neutral if all the content is in the model, regardless of whether you had to twist its arm or not. What does that even mean with a piece of software?

A printer is neutral because you have to send it all the data to print out a copy of copyrighted content. It doesn’t contain it inherently.

>>throwu+lf
Well I’m callin you a liar, and I’m open to being proven wrong.

Show me a prompt that can produce the first paragraph of chapter 3 of the first Harry Potter book. Because i don’t think you can. I don’t think you can prove it’s “in” there, or retrieve it. And if you can’t do either of those things then I think it’s irrelevant to your claims.

>>throwu+lf
The fact that the NYT lawyers used a carefully written prompt kind of nullifies this argument. It's not like they stumbled on it on accident, they looked for it and their prompt isn't neutral either.