[arduanika]

If you regurgitate the paywalled article verbatim, as a service, for customers, then yes, you infringed. If you didn't, and you didn't build a system that has some probability of doing so, then no, you didn't. How is this so hard to understand.

[feyman_r]

Because it’s a hard problem! there are nuances to this complex problem that need to be thought through before reducing too much.

In this case, then, regurgitation is the problem then, not the fact that it was ‘read’.

If the models ensured that probability of regurgitation is near-zero, would that be ok?

[arduanika]

If I had a gadget that might steal your life's savings, but assured you the probability was "near-zero", would you be ok with that?

Perhaps you personally would be fine with it. But would it be ok for a court declaring that someone has no recourse, and must accept such an uncompensated risk?