[Robotbeat]

Correct, just like it’s infringement to reproduce an article from memory using pen and paper intentionally. The person deciding to do that bears responsibility. OpenAI would be liable IFF they were intentionally facilitating that, instead of it being an undesired artifact from overfitting.

[cyborgx7]

I'm pretty sure if you reproduce a work from memory by accident, because you didn't notice your subconscious had just stored the entire article and is now reproducing it word for word, you'd still be guilty of copyright infringement.

[Robotbeat]

Or the person doing the prompt hacking intending to produce this result from you would be.

[yencabulator]

The music business is full of examples of that.

[freejazz]

It's super obnoxious when people who have no understanding of the law, point to industry patterns or behaviors as examples of what is legal, not knowing the law and not knowing whether or not the thing they are pointing to is legal. The music business is also full of copyright infringement litigation. You also are not taking into account whether what is copied by an artist is covered by copyright when you made your statement. Do you know what's covered in music copyrights, such that your statement ever had any value for anyone else here?

[freejazz]

That's not true at all. Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense with no inquiry in to the state of the mind of the infringer from a liability perspective. The state of mind of the infringer is only relevant to the issue of willful infringement.

[anticensor]

Willful vs less-than-willful infringement are definitely two separate types of offences, as indicated by the difference of penalty.

[freejazz]

It's just "infringement" and "willful infringement" there is no "less-than-willful infringement". Willful infringement is punitive with increased damages and increased burden to show - it's in the freakin' statute.