Copyright Under Siege: How Big Tech Uses AI And China To Exploit Creators
Generative AI is reshaping creativity in ways that highlight a troubling paradox: while touted as a force for innovation, it increasingly relies on exploiting copyrighted materials, songs, books, and artworks, without consent or compensation. This transformation underscores the growing conflict between technological progress and the preservation of artistic integrity. At the heart of the issue lies a troubling paradox: while companies like OpenAI and Google promote AI as a force for innovation, their reliance on scraping copyrighted materials, songs, books, and artworks, undermines the very creativity they claim to enhance. This exploitation is often disguised as progress or justified as necessary for global competitiveness, particularly in the AI race against China. However, these claims mask a deeper reality: the consolidation of power by Big Tech at the expense of creators. As the balance of influence shifts, those who drive culture and innovation are increasingly marginalized, raising urgent questions about the future of intellectual property and creative industries.
DeepSeek: The Small Team That Dismantled The AI Illusion
For years, U.S. tech giants like OpenAI and Microsoft sold the illusion of proprietary brilliance, a “special sauce” requiring billions in funding and top-tier hardware. But this myth was shattered by DeepSeek, a small Chinese team that matched OpenAI’s top models for just 3% of the cost. Reports suggest they post-trained on outputs from ChatGPT and utilized unconventional methods to avoid reliance on high-cost NVIDIA GPUs, potentially including open-source approaches or alternative hardware solutions. Ironic to see AI labs, which dismiss copyright and refuse to support open science, now caught in a bind, lacking both the ethical and legal grounds to protect their own outputs.
DeepSeek’s modular, energy-efficient architecture demonstrated scalability without contributing to massive carbon emissions. The fallout has left industry giants, from Mark Zuckerberg to Sam Altman, scrambling to justify their inflated valuations. With DeepSeek exposing the inefficiency of U.S. AI investments, including $100 billion in infrastructure, the “DeepSeek Moment” has become a turning point, challenging Silicon Valley’s dominance.
The Copyright Heist: How Big Tech Pillages Creativity
Generative AI competes directly with the works it’s trained on. OpenAI, Google, and others scraped billions of copyrighted materials, songs, books, artworks, without consent or compensation. They claim this is “fair use” and even disguise it as a patriotic necessity to maintain military dominance against China. However, this argument doesn’t hold up. The claim that copyrighted novels or paintings are critical to U.S. military competitiveness lacks evidence and distracts from real technological priorities. For instance, AI’s use in military applications typically focuses on advancements in machine learning for surveillance, logistics, and autonomous systems, none of which depend on training datasets derived from creative works.
These claims are not only misleading but serve as a convenient justification for undermining copyright protections under the guise of national security. Big Tech’s claims that generative AI will tackle humanity’s biggest problems, like curing cancer, are misleading marketing hyperbole. Curing cancer involves understanding complex systems like the immune response, cancer biology, and patient-specific genetics, fields far beyond the scope of generative AI, which is designed for surface-level data synthesis. For example, predictive oncology requires integrating diverse data, such as genetic sequencing, environmental factors, and patient histories, into actionable treatments. Generative AI, primarily trained on creative works, lacks the precision and scientific depth to address these challenges. These exaggerated claims distract from the real issue: the exploitation of copyrighted materials for profit without consent or compensation and the consolidation of power under the guise of innovation. By framing AI as a universal solution, corporations obscure the significant gaps between its marketed capabilities and its actual potential, while further marginalizing creators and the intellectual property they depend on.
The Foundation for American Innovation: Redefining Copyright
The Foundation for American Innovation, a lobbying group advocating for reduced copyright restrictions, has been at the forefront of efforts to legalize AI’s use of copyrighted materials without consent. Their white paper, titled “Copyright, AI, and Great Power Competition” argues that imposing copyright restrictions on AI training data would disadvantage the U.S. in global AI development, particularly against China. FAI claims that hefty fines or legal actions against U.S. companies for copyright violations would cripple innovation, leaving the field open for Chinese developers, who reportedly operate with fewer legal constraints.
This position conveniently overlooks the lack of robust opt-out mechanisms for creators and the broader implications of bypassing copyright. Current frameworks, such as robots.txt and existing opt-out systems fail to provide effective protection. Many creators have no meaningful tools to track or enforce their rights against large-scale data scraping for AI training.
FAI’s argument uses fear of Chinese competition as a smokescreen to push for policies that prioritize corporate interests over creators’ rights. Instead of addressing the systemic flaws in AI training data usage, their proposals further disempower creators, consolidating power in the hands of Big Tech under the guise of global competitiveness.
This narrative is deceptive. While it frames copyright protections as a national security risk, it conveniently ignores the broader implications of undermining creators’ rights. By legalizing copyright violations, FAI’s proposals not only strip creators of compensation but also disincentivize new creative outputs, resulting in weaker training datasets over time. This shortsighted approach prioritizes Big Tech profits while disregarding the foundational principles of intellectual property protection enshrined in the Berne Convention.
Europe’s Struggle With Copyright Protections
In Europe, the situation is similarly fraught. While the EU’s Article 4 of the DSM Directive provides for opt-out systems under the Text and Data Mining exemption, this framework fails to address widespread unauthorized use of copyrighted works in practice. A recent feasibility study commissioned by the European Commission highlights the challenges of developing a central registry for creators to express their rights effectively, underscoring the inadequacies of current enforcement mechanisms.
Meanwhile, in the UK, the government has strategically aligned itself with Big Tech, using the supposed “AI race” as justification to overhaul copyright protections. Policymakers claim to have conducted consultations with stakeholders, but these consultations appear superficial, as the government has already signaled its intent to prioritize AI adoption over creators’ rights. By proposing expansive copyright exceptions under the guise of fostering innovation, the UK government is effectively handing over creators’ intellectual property to large corporations, ignoring the protests of creative industries. This policy shift has been met with widespread criticism, as it disproportionately impacts small creators and businesses who lack the resources to navigate or combat such exploitative frameworks. By consolidating power in the hands of Big Tech, these policies strip creators of their ability to control and profit from their own work, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.The government’s stance highlights a troubling trend: using global AI competitiveness as a pretext to strip creators of their ability to control and profit from their own work.
Spotify, Trump, And The Double Standards Of Big Tech
Big Tech’s calculated alignment with pro-deregulation policies became evident during Trump’s inauguration, which saw significant contributions from companies like OpenAI, Amazon, and Apple. These corporations collectively funneled funds into lobbying efforts aimed at weakening copyright protections, justifying their actions under the guise of fostering AI innovation. By positioning themselves as indispensable players in the AI race, they effectively pushed for policies that prioritize corporate dominance over creators’ rights.
David Sacks, a venture capitalist and vocal advocate of deregulation, has emerged as a key figure in this ecosystem, leveraging his influence as Trump’s new AI czar. Similarly, Marc Andreessen, a major backer of Trump-aligned initiatives, underscores the growing alignment between venture capital and deregulatory agendas. Spotify’s $150,000 donation to the inauguration exemplifies this hypocrisy. While portraying itself as a champion of creative industries, Spotify exploits musicians by slashing royalties and embracing AI-generated music to cut costs.
These companies fiercely protect their proprietary systems while brazenly scraping copyrighted materials for AI training, leaving creators and small businesses to shoulder the costs of their profiteering. The double standard is glaring, and creators are paying the price.
The Deep Cultural Crisis Of Generative AI
Generative AI is not enhancing creativity, it’s replacing it. Deezer’s own research shows that 10% of tracks uploaded daily are fully AI-generated. This isn’t innovation; it’s a regurgitation of existing content, designed to maximize profits while reducing the need for human input. By using AI to infiltrate every aspect of life, these companies aren’t just consolidating power, they are eroding human agency. Skills that once defined creativity and problem-solving are being outsourced to algorithms, fostering a learned helplessness across society. This isn’t a question of money; it’s a question of power. AI adoption at this scale undermines the intellectual and creative potential of individuals, turning human innovation into a relic of the past. Instead of solving humanity’s biggest challenges, AI risks turning society into passive consumers of algorithmic outputs while wasting the incredible potential of the human mind.
At the same time, the music industry has fallen into the trap of embracing generative AI’s potential for “good”, such as curing diseases or enhancing creativity, without addressing the core issue of copyright exploitation. By doing so, they deflect attention from the systemic harm being done to the creative ecosystem.
Creators And Consumers Must Fight Back
Resistance is possible. Grassroots efforts like tar pits, web tools like HarmonyCloak designed to trap AI training bots in endless loops, are showing that creators can fight back. However, the focus shouldn’t only be on creators or consumers. Policymakers, who often align with Big Tech’s interests, need to move beyond surface-level consultations and enforce robust opt-in regimes that genuinely protect creators’ rights. Many consumers remain unaware of the extent to which these systems exploit creativity and undermine human potential. Education and awareness are critical to shifting public sentiment and exposing the false promises of generative AI as a solution to humanity’s challenges. By addressing these systemic issues collectively, society can begin to push back against the exploitation of both creators and the broader cultural landscape.
A Call For A Pro-Human Future
Generative AI is not the future; it’s a hollow imitation of the past. True progress lies in fostering human creativity, autonomy, and spiritual connection. Investments should prioritize art, education, and innovation that empower individuals rather than commodifying their work. To secure a pro-human future, we must resist Big Tech’s greed-driven agenda and champion a society where creativity thrives, free from exploitation.
