It’s the 90s. You’re 15. You download a song. Everyone’s doing it.
The dial-up screeches. The progress bar crawls for hours. The file finally lands. You hold something you didn’t pay for. It feels like sharing. It feels like the future. It feels like freedom. You didn’t steal. You copied; like taping the radio. The original was still there. You just wanted to hear the music.
Then the letter arrives. The lawsuit. The number with all those zeros. $80,000 per track. The parents’ faces. The fear. The kid who thought they were just getting a song is now told they owe more than a house. The kid becomes a cautionary tale. The kid’s name gets published. The kid becomes the example.
The specific cruelty of making an example of a child to protect an industry that was already stealing from the artists they claimed to protect.
And the industry didn’t just make an example. They made 30,000 examples. The RIAA sued over 30,000 people between 2003 and 2008. Most were kids. Most had no money. Most settled. Most never got the record. Jammie Thomas-Rasset was fined $80,000 per song for downloading 24 tracks. $1.92 million for 24 songs. Joel Tenenbaum was fined $22,500 per song for downloading 31 tracks. $675,000 for a college student’s music collection.
The industry had a choice. They could adapt. They could build the new model. They could meet the future. Instead they sued their own customers. They sued kids. They sued grandmothers. They sued dead people. They sued because they could. They sued because the law was their weapon and the kids were the target. They sued to send a message. The message was: You don’t own the music. You don’t own the means of distribution. You don’t own the future. We do.
Who wrote the law? The lobbyists. The corporations. The DMCA was written by the industry. The Copyright Act was written by the industry. The laws that sue the kid were written by the people who steal from the artist. The law protects property, not people. The law protects capital, not creation.
And the people the law doesn’t protect?
The working artists.
Not the famous ones.
Not the rock stars.
The session musicians. The backup singers. The freelance illustrators. The writers. The people who made a middle-class living making art. The people who paid their rent with a guitar riff or a book cover or a jingle. These are the people whose work is now “training data.” Their life’s labor. Their style. Their voice. Scraped without permission. Used without credit. Sold without compensation.
The artist who spent 10,000 hours learning their craft. The artist who watches a machine replicate their style in seconds. The artist who sees their life’s work scraped, processed, and sold back to the world without their name. The artist who is told “adapt or die” by the same people who stole their work. The artist who is told “you were never that good anyway” by the people who needed their work to train the machine.
How the theft works.
It’s not just “scraping.” It’s industrial-scale extraction. Bots crawling the internet. Mass downloading from portfolios and galleries and streaming platforms. Datasets built on millions of copyrighted works. The LAION-5B dataset contains 5 billion image-text pairs scraped without artist consent. Common Crawl archives petabytes of copyrighted text. Stability AI downloaded millions of images from Getty and called it training. OpenAI ingested millions of books and articles and called it learning. The laundering of stolen work through “training” and “learning” and “fair use.”
The tech companies claim “fair use.” They claim “transformative.” They claim their theft is innovation. They claim the AI is just learning, like a human learns. But a human doesn’t learn by downloading a million paintings and then selling a machine that replicates them. A human doesn’t learn by erasing the name of the artist and stamping “Generated by AI” on the output.
A human is inspired.
A human transforms.
A human credits their influences.
A human doesn’t industrialize theft and call it innovation.
The “democratizing creativity” lie. AI doesn’t democratize creativity. It democratizes theft. It makes theft accessible to everyone. It makes theft easy. It makes theft profitable. It makes theft legal if you have enough money.
The New York Times is suing OpenAI. The artists are suing Midjourney. The writers are suing over their books. The cases that will determine whether art belongs to the people who make it or the corporations that steal it.
The kid in the 90s gets a lawsuit that ruins their life. The CEO in the 2020s gets a $10 billion valuation. The law applies to one. The law protects the other. Copyright for the poor. Theft for the rich.
The 15-year-old is told “stealing is wrong.” The AI company is told “disrupt the market.” The kid is told “pay the fine.” The corporation is told “here’s a tax write-off.” The kid’s future is destroyed. The corporation’s future is funded.
When AI replaces all creative work, culture dies. The machine doesn’t create. It replicates. It regurgitates. It averages. It flattens. It takes the 10,000 hours of human struggle and reduces it to a prompt. The art becomes homogeneous. The edge is sanded off. The voice is lost. The culture becomes a mirror reflecting a mirror. Nothing new. Nothing human. Nothing alive.
The system that sued the kid protects the corporation. The system that enforces copyright erases the artist. The system that decides who owns the art decides who owns the law. The system that decides which children get to live decides which artists get to eat.
The kid pays the debt. The artist loses the livelihood. The corporation makes the profit. The law stays the same.
The theft isn’t stopping.
It. Is. Scaling.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
