Inapt Mixing of National Defense with Copyright Law Raises Broader Questions
First published 7/9/25 on The Illusion of More
Dr. Rebecca Grant, Vice President of Lexington Institute, alleges in a recent post that copyright owners—specifically the bogeyman of “Hollywood”—form an obstacle to national security in the effort to win the AI cold war with China. Out of respect for her credentials as a security expert, I shall assume that all of Dr. Grant’s specific references to the role of AI in defense operations are accurately, if broadly, stated. But her references to fair use, akin to Open AI’s March memo to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, are misguided, if not intentionally misleading.
After overstating the significance of the findings in the Bartz and Kadrey opinions, Dr. Grant writes, “It’s not Hollywood’s job to factor in national security. Discussions around AI and creativity will persist. However, a new key issue is indeed emerging: allowing American AI models to continue training on the highest-quality data is crucial to maintaining the lead over China.” Later in the post, she cites literature, especially works of fiction, as “high-quality data,” and even if she is correct on the science and its role in defense operations, the erroneous invocation of fair use (and Hollywood for that matter) casts doubt over the entire premise of her argument—especially in the era of Trump 2.0.
To reiterate what I said in response to Open AI leaning too hard on national security in this context, Dr. Grant’s argument has nothing to do with the affirmative defense of fair use in a copyright infringement claim. Fair use is a case-by-case consideration for the courts, and in fact, Judge Chhabria in Kadrey forecasts several reasons why AI developers in many of the other cases are likely to lose. What Dr. Grant is advocating is a blanket exemption to mass copyright infringement with the urgency of “beating China” on an accelerated timeline. If that is the goal, it is neither practical nor well founded to even mention fair use, but it is hard to say whether copyright law is simply outside Dr. Grant’s wheelhouse, or if “fair use” is being used rhetorically, like so many terms mangled by the current administration, to mask the real agenda.
Should Authors Subsidize AI Whether They Like It Or Not?
The days of the WWII-era total effort are both a distant memory and inapplicable to a cold war, while the principle that politics stop at the water’s edge is one of many American virtues eroded to an empty slogan. I do not dispute that China is an adversary, but sadly, the beacon of U.S. democracy is a sputtering fluorescent tube in the hands of an administration that emulates the policies and propaganda of our adversaries. Presently, more Americans are concerned about becoming the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) than beating it in the new AI-driven cold war. And I will venture to guess that some version of that view is held by most authors of creative and cultural works protected by copyright law.
In any era, it would be wrong to insist that the nation’s authors and artists are required to contribute to a national defense effort, but even if every novelist in the country were committed to that idea, Dr. Grant overlooks a few complications. For instance, she acknowledges that the AI war relies upon the massive private investment of Big Tech in contrast to historical defense initiatives funded by the government. But she appears unconcerned by the assertion that America’s authors should subsidize all AI applications, including all commercial interests of the tech companies, on the basis that some uses will be applied in defense operations.
Absent the fog in the present climate, a traditional conservative might notice that this model looks a lot like Communism. Even defense related acquisition in the U.S. entails billions in public dollars paid to private industry contractors and suppliers who pay for the materials and labor needed to build planes, write software, etc. Yet, stunningly, the press release linking me to Dr. Grant’s post dings “lefty Hollywood” while the post itself argues that America’s authors must be compelled to underwrite both the commercial and military applications developed by Big Tech.
This sleight of hand is exacerbated by the fact that Web 2.0 was the principal catalyst in weakening the American democracy allegedly being defended against CCP. The current administration’s assault on the pillars of democracy is a direct consequence of a dangerously disinformed electorate, a paradoxical result of the “information age,” which includes, by the way, unfettered access by adversarial nations to the American public. As a policy matter, the abysmal failure of the information revolution is a consequence of allowing Big Tech to do whatever the hell it wants, which stands in stark contrast to the litany of rules and regulations that guide the manufacture of the many warplanes Dr. Grant knows so well.
Generative AI already reveals its many toxic applications—from sextortion to parties imitating the voice of the Secretary of State, and so on. The implications for AI deepening epistemic crisis and dangerous chicanery are obvious to a thirteen-year-old reading her first sci-fi novel. And amid that chaos, few authors or artists trust any of the parties leading the AI cold war—from the President to the techbros—to give a damn about democracy in the opaque and classified race with the Chinese.
I’ve said it before and will keep saying it: there is no virtue in beating the CCP if it means becoming the CCP in the process. The ethical development and application of AI goes to the heart of whether the U.S. will completely abandon the principles that made it the indispensable democratic leader—a reputation already damaged without the assistance of artificial intelligence. In that context, I think it is fair to say that few authors and artists would consider it a patriotic duty to contribute their works to “national security” while simultaneously allowing the richest companies on Earth to exploit their labors for profit without permission or compensation.
Photo by: Tanaonte