In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

Both are copyright infringements, but only the latter is art theft.

As the article has pointed out, it's not the principle that has changed, but the scale. Lots of things that are tolerable at small scale (e.g. lying, stealing) become disruptive to society at larger scale.

Copyright has been used in the past as a way for corporations to rent-seek and limit innovation. Now it may be the only legal means to stop them from doing that.

For example, if you rent a movie, you can watch it with your family. Nobody is going to sue you for distributing the movie with 5 people in your room. That's pure nonsense. Same with music, books, etc.

If you try to play the movie in an establishment with dozens of people, then it can become a problem, because you're essentially a theater now.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what the law is on selling fan art on a convention or even privately commissioned fan artwork. But things aren't as draconian as people assume it is.

"We can't do this legally, so we should be allowed to ignore the law."

If you can't build a model while respecting licenses, don't build a model.

(I don't want copyright to exist, at any duration, and I certainly think it should be much shorter than it is. As long as it exists, AI should not get any exception to it.)

Last but not least, generating csam and deep fakes porn on social medias and having to see it called free speech

Yes, but they were found not liable for copying the books they purchased. They were found liable for the books they torrented.

The former is something publishers still want to address