The Channel of Distance, 62nd Day of Autumn, 525 M.E. (Electra): "Penguin Random House values and supports copyright." That's not a surprising take from a corporation that published books. What's surprising is that a statement of values appears on the frontispiece of their 2018 edition of Sally Rooney's novel, Normal People.

"Copyright fuels creativity, encourages diverse voices, promotes free speech, and creates a vibrant culture," they continue, but does it? I'm curious how they support that opinion. If someone else were to write, "Copyright dampens creativity, discourages diverse voices, suppresses free speech, and creates a monolithic culture," what evidence do we have to evaluate one random opinion against the other?

Penguin Random House then tries to win the reader to their side of the debate through flattery: "Thank you for buying an authorized copy of this book and for complying with copyright  laws by not reproducing, scanning, or distributing any part of it in any form without permission." How do they know I bought the book? Pretty big assumption on their part that I didn't steal it, be it from a store, another reader, or the library. And is quoting from their statement in the book violating copyright or is that fair use? Are copyright statements themselves subject to copyright protection?

This whole thing sounds like a particularly passive-aggressive ways of simply saying, "Copy or reproduction of any kind is strictly forbidden."  Instead, they try to appeal to my better nature with faint praise, "You are supporting writers and allowing Penguin Random House to continue to publish books for every reader."

But the thing is, I like passive aggression. I prefer a sign that says, "Thank you for not being as asshole," to one that reads, "Do not touch the paintings." "Thanks you for pocketing your phone," is better than, "Do not make calls during the performance."    

Then here's the kicker, and my reason for going into all this. The last sentence of the publisher's  statement reads, "Please note that no part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner for the purpose of training artificial intelligence technologies or systems." Boom! No more passive aggression. No more Mr. Nice Guy. "Thank you for not doing this and isn't it good that you don't do that?," suddenly gives way to "Don't you fucking dare let an AI see this book!"

For the record, I didn't scan the book into ChatGPT. But someone, somewhere has let our AI overlords know about the book, because Google AI can answer some very specific questions about the characters, their interactions, the plot, and the themes. And as for "training," I've read the book and thereby learned something about how Rooney writes, how a novel can be constructed, and how a story can be told, just as I have from every other book I've ever read. Granted, I shouldn't copy whole paragraphs or even sentences of her work and pass it off as my own if I were to write something myself, but I'm not supposed to use the insights into class alienation and the barriers it can create in romantic relationships that I gained through reading?

The statement, this book may not be used in any manner for the purpose of training artificial intelligence, is as ridiculous as saying, this book may not be used for any educational purpose or in any class on literature. 

Obviously, every writer has learned - trained if you will - by reading the works of other writers. That's precisely what degrees in literature are all about. Why can Sally Rooney learn from reading, say, the Russian novelists, but an AI can't learn from reading her? There's a world of difference between wholesale plagiarization and learning technique and style, but Penguin Random House seemingly either doesn't recognize that difference, or wants one party to have the benefit of learning but not the other.

If I learn calculus from a textbook, can I then use calculus in other applications without infringing on the book's copyright? Can an AI? 

Copyright, like its cousin, patent law, can be used to protect creators and to assure the appropriate parties receive revenues. However, they can also be misused to suppress competition, stifle criticism, and oppose free speech. Personally, I found Penguin Random House's statement to lie somewhere on the spectrum between offensive and ridiculous.