Consistency would be welcome indeed. We have courts saying it's fair use to do this at scale to train LLMs, but minor violations like this trigger man-years of investigations and threats of imprisonment. The contradiction is grating. This circle can be squared only by admitting that there is one law for the wealthy and powerful, and another for the rest of us.
The jurisdiction is different. The alleged offense is different. The stage of legal proceedings is different.
There's no contradiction between an American court finding that using legally acquired copies of copyrighted material for AI training constitutes fair use, and Italian police launching an investigation because they suspect someone might be selling illegal copies of copyrighted material.
No one is claiming that the law is wrongly interpreted. We're saying that the law is wrong.
How is it legal to generate the content of that YouTube with genAI but not to actually tape it with real people. Why does an AI have more rights than this YouTuber.
If the law were truly consistent, surgeons would go to jail for cutting people with knives.
As soon as you recognize that context should matter in law, consistency is no longer possible.
I’m not defending big companies pirating books or saying YouTubers should go to jail, I’m just saying there are material differences in context that make it juvenile to demand perfect consistency.
