The debate over copyright law is intensifying, particularly as it relates to the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence. While copyright holders often frame stronger protections as a defense against tech giants exploiting creative work, a growing chorus of voices – including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – argues that current copyright policy actually concentrates power in the hands of large corporations, stifling competition and hindering innovation. The core issue isn’t protecting creators, they contend, but solidifying the dominance of existing gatekeepers.
The traditional argument for copyright – incentivizing creativity by granting exclusive rights – is being challenged by the realities of the modern digital landscape. The EFF points out that attempts to bolster creator rights through copyright law often backfire, particularly given the inherent power imbalance between artists and the publishing industries. As the EFF analogizes, “trying to help creators by giving them new rights under copyright law is like trying to help a bullied kid by giving them more lunch money for the bully to take.” This dynamic has been historically evident in the music industry. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, major record labels and publishers secured massive licensing deals with streaming services like Spotify and Google, reportedly receiving hundreds of millions of dollars and even equity stakes in these companies. However, these financial gains rarely translate into meaningful benefits for the artists themselves.
This pattern extends into the AI era. While copyright might initially seem like a tool to prevent tech companies from freely profiting from AI models trained on creators’ work, the EFF argues the opposite is true. Developing a large language model (LLM) requires vast amounts of training data. Imposing strict licensing requirements for this data would effectively limit LLM development to only those corporations with the resources to afford it – either those possessing extensive proprietary datasets or those capable of negotiating expensive deals. This would create a significant barrier to entry, hindering competition and potentially leading to higher costs, reduced service quality, and increased security risks.
The case of ROSS Intelligence, a legal research startup, vividly illustrates this point. ROSS developed an AI-powered tool to compete with established legal research platforms like Westlaw, and LexisNexis. The company trained its AI using “West headnotes” – summaries of legal conclusions added by Thomson Reuters to published court decisions. ROSS’s tool didn’t reproduce the headnotes themselves, but rather used them to understand the underlying legal principles. Despite this, Thomson Reuters sued ROSS for copyright infringement. The resulting legal battle, still ongoing as of , ultimately forced ROSS out of business, eliminating a potential competitor and demonstrating how copyright law can be weaponized to protect market dominance. The EFF filed a brief in the case, hoping the appeals court will reject what they consider an overly broad interpretation of copyright law.
The problem isn’t limited to AI training data. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) anti-circumvention provision, originally intended to prevent piracy, has also been used to stifle competition. While ostensibly designed to deter infringement by preventing the bypassing of DRM and other access controls, it has, in practice, been used to block innovation in a wide range of industries, from printer cartridges to video game accessories. Manufacturers have leveraged the DMCA to maintain control over their products even after purchase, preventing users from modifying or repairing them and suppressing secondary markets. This effectively grants manufacturers a perpetual veto over new competition and innovation.
The EFF advocates for a more balanced copyright policy – one that rewards creators without impeding competition. The current system, they argue, favors large corporations at the expense of grassroots innovation and emerging creators. The concentration of power among a handful of corporate gatekeepers limits consumer choice and hinders the development of new and beneficial technologies. The core principle should be lowering barriers to entry, fostering a more open and competitive marketplace where originality and creativity are truly rewarded, and where the benefits of technological advancement are widely shared.
the debate centers on whether copyright law should serve as a tool for protecting established interests or as a catalyst for fostering a dynamic and competitive ecosystem. The EFF’s position is clear: a copyright system that “kills competition” ultimately harms everyone – creators, consumers, and innovators alike.
