AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

Shifting attitudes toward copyright and AI

• Some see former “anti-copyright” people now invoking copyright against AI as hypocritical or purely tactical.
• Others argue the stance is consistent: they oppose current copyright implementations and corporate abuse, not the basic idea of protecting creators.
• A common throughline: people mainly dislike when copyright is used (or ignored) by large corporations to crush individuals, not when individuals bend it for personal use.

Scale, automation, and AI-specific concerns

• Several commenters emphasize scale: behaviors tolerated at human scale (remix, “inspiration,” light infringement) become socially disruptive when automated and done by trillion-parameter models.
• AI is framed as industrialized, systematic reuse of others’ work, different from casual piracy; some call this “art theft,” especially when uncredited and profit-driven.
• Others argue AI content should be treated like human content, but note a key legal asymmetry: AIs have no rights or liability, so humans can offload blame.

Derivative works, private use, and “transformation”

• Debate over whether drawing copyrighted characters at home is infringement: consensus leans toward “derivative, but practically irrelevant unless publicly exploited.”
• Some stress the law distinguishes private/family use from “public” performance or distribution.
• The term “transformative use” is seen as ill-defined; AI companies are viewed as exploiting this ambiguity rather than creating it.

Duration, reform, and competing proposals

• Many criticize excessively long copyright terms (e.g., WWII-era works still locked up) as making “compliant” AI training nearly impossible.
• One camp says: if AI can’t be built legally, don’t build it; change the law first, and changes must apply to everyone, not just big AI firms.
• Others propose radical reform: much shorter terms (5–20 years), mandatory attribution, royalties for a limited window, and rapid entry into the public domain.

Law, justice, and corporate power

• Recurrent theme: the law serves capital more than humans.
• Large companies are seen both weaponizing copyright (DMCA, DRM, enforcement asymmetries) and ignoring it when convenient (mass scraping, training without licenses).
• Some argue breaking unjust laws can be morally justified or even commendable; others insist change should come via democratic reform, not corporate fait accompli.