As you point out, a model is not a person, so your second argument invalidates your first sentence. We can't assume that they're the same thing; that's for the courts to decide. It ultimately hinges on whether or not the courts consider a given use of copyrighted material as "transformative" or otherwise constituting fair use under copyright law.
replyThe model seems to be a person when it's advantageous and not a person when it isn't...
replyThere's a lot of anthropomorphizing on all sides of the debate. Personally, I think we should just call it a piece of software and leave it at that.
replyI was making two separate points:
replyA model is not a person -> we need to write new laws. This is not a job for the courts but for us as a society.
The rest of my argument -> information that helps the courts decide, which generally will look at precedent with humans as that is the closest proxy. When you extrapolate from the law as it pertains to humans, the duplication of books for distributed training seems illegal.