[capnrefsmmat]

OpenAI is the custodian of the user data, so they are responsible. If you wanted the court (i.e., the plaintiffs) to find specific infringing chatters, first they'd have to get the data from OpenAI to find who it is -- which is exactly what they're trying to do, and why OpenAI is being told to preserve the data so they can review it.

[happyopossum]

So the courts should start ordering all ISPs, browsers, and OSs to log all browsing and chat activity going forward, so they can find out which people are doing bad things on the internet.

[dragonwriter]

No, they should not.

However, if the ISP, for instance, is sued, then it (immediately and without a separate court order) becomes illegal for them to knowingly destroy evidence in their custody relevant to the issue for which they are being sued, and if there is a dispute about their handling of particular such evidence, a court can and will order them specifically to preserve relevant evidence as necessary. And, with or without a court order, their destruction of relevant evidence once they know of the suit can be the basis of both punitive sanctions and adverse findings in the case to which the evidence would have been relevant.

[lovich]

If those entities were custodians in charge of the data at hand in the court case, the court would order that.

This post appears to be full of people who aren’t actually angry at the results of this case but angry at how the US legal system has been working for decades, possibly centuries since I don’t know when this precedent was first set

[lelanthran]

> So the courts should start ordering all ISPs, browsers, and OSs to log all browsing and chat activity going forward, so they can find out which people are doing bad things on the internet.

Not "all", just the ones involved in a current suit. They already routinely do this anway (Party A is involved in a suit and is ordered to retain any and all evidence for the duration of the trial, starting from the first knowledge that Party A had of the trial).

You are mischaracterising what happens; you are presenting it as "Any court, at any time can order any party who is not involved in any suit in that sourt to forever hold user data"

That is not what is happening.

[Vilian]

Or you didn't read what was written by the other comment, or are just arguing in bad faith, what's even weierder because the guy was only explaining how the the system always worked