Except these models are not designed to circumvent copyright, in fact their primary purpose is to generate non-copyright and non-copyrightable output. It can be induced to product facsimiles of copyright material, but that’s explicitly not the purpose or intent and requires positive action on the users behalf to occur.

I'm saying `A => B` (something should be illegal if it's primarily for crime) and you're saying `-A` (LLMs are not primarily for crime), which is not really a disagreement. My point is disagreeing with the GGP who argued that `-B regardless of A` (LLMs should not be a crime regardless of whether they facilitate crime, because it is the end-user who is committing the crime).

I happen to mostly believe the conclusion (`-B`) but not the particular argument.

Photocopy machines are great at making copies of copyrighted material, and are completely legal in the US. The entire internet routinely makes copies every time you visit a web page.

What's illegal in the US is selling tools for breaking DRM: https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/10/26/us-copyright-office...

From a quick google, open source tools for breaking DRM are legal, and so is breaking DRM for personal use: https://www.google.com/search?q=are+drm+defeating+tools+ille...