This is the old way of doing it, and probably the way the US is going to go with, at the detriment of its own population. - I would posit that since we are talking about digital goods, there is a better way:

Require open source / open weights of any company that used data to it doesn't own to train its models. If chinese companies do not comply, their copyright becomes void in the US, and these models are very easy to copy. Treat advances in architecture as a utility, and let the utilization of those architectures be the market for companies to compete in.

That one weird trick. x4.

Gold

Of course, none of this will prevent china from producing technology that's clearly as impressive, if not more so.

This is all protectionistic measures. Just let it implode, and let companies with better technology take over.

Why should people involved in some hyped company deserve all this "socialism for the rich" from the state?

Yeah sorry I worded my comment in a weird way: I'm definitively not advocating for any of those points

A copyright exemption would just put them at the level of deepseek officially, but they've been working around that anyway in practice. I'm not sure that change would make any difference.

> but they've been working around that anyway in practice

Working around how?

Flagrantly violating

Edit: Facebook torrented 81.7TB of books.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-o...

Well there was the case of an employee leaving due to his perceived moral issues around the use of copyrighted material in the training dataset [1]

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/openai-whistleblower-who...