Did AI Just Cross the Line?

Two days ago, my friend asked me, “Have you checked the news?” I thought she meant another tech launch, but instead she bent and whispered in my ear, “The court just confirmed that Anthropic destroyed millions of books to train their AI.”

I laughed at first, it sounded like one of those online rumors. But when she showed me the court documents, my eyes widened – The Company tore the bindings off millions of physical books, digitized the pages, and threw the remains away. They claimed it was a necessary step to teach their AI. But wait, if you are sitting in the courtroom that day, what will be your verdict?

Okay…But guess what?

The court called that “fair use” simply because the output was “transformative,” it was somehow… okay. But is it really? Why not take a sit and let’s talk about what ‘fair use’ meant.

What is Fair Use?

The term "fair use" originated from U.S. copyright law and is rooted in the idea of balancing the rights of creators with the public’s right to access and build upon knowledge. The phrase went viral in the mid-19th century, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.. In this case, the rap group 2 Live Crew released a parody of Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman.” The original music publisher sued for copyright infringement. But the court sided with the artists, emphasizing that they didn’t just copy the song, but add new meaning hence, fair use.

To point straight at the bull’s eye, fair use means:

“You can use parts of copyrighted work without paying or asking, if your use adds new meaning, message, or value—and doesn’t hurt the original creator’s market.” – Stanford University Libraries

So, where does ripping the bindings off millions of books fit into that definition?

For one thing, Anthropic didn’t copy and paraphrase passages to create new meaning. They simply consumed entire volumes—cover to cover—to feed an algorithm. No commentary, no conversation, just quietly feeding the data hungry AI.

To interpret ‘fair use’ to their favor, they say the AI doesn’t spit the books back out word-for-word. But what it does do is learn from the ideas and structure to generate new things.

That’s where it gets murky. If an AI writes a beautiful paragraph, but that beauty came from ten thousand human authors it never credited, is that still fair?

To me, if we keep stretching fair use to justify anything that feels new, we risk snapping the very principle that protects creators in the first place.

What do you think?

Did AI Just Cross the Line?