You're making huge assumptions there. Specifically that LLMs are only trained by megacorps (not currently true) or that copyright is only held by individuals (also not currently true.)
Besides those mistaken assumptions, I think you have thr copyright issue exactly backwards.
Let's imagine the court decides that any computer processing of a work (that isn't intended to help present that work in a licensed manner) requires a special ML license from a each copyright holder.
This automatically creates a huge moat for all the large AI companies that can afford that licensing and maybe even negotiate LLM exclusivity. Now you've created an even larger power imbalance by putting this domninant new technology into the control of large corporations.
Additionally, legal disputes around copyright already tend to predominantly favor those with large legal budgets. Who is going to be more successful in finding and suing LLMs that use unlicensed content? It's going to be the large megacorp copyright holders. CoughDisneyCough.
Besides those mistaken assumptions, I think you have thr copyright issue exactly backwards.
Let's imagine the court decides that any computer processing of a work (that isn't intended to help present that work in a licensed manner) requires a special ML license from a each copyright holder.
This automatically creates a huge moat for all the large AI companies that can afford that licensing and maybe even negotiate LLM exclusivity. Now you've created an even larger power imbalance by putting this domninant new technology into the control of large corporations.
Additionally, legal disputes around copyright already tend to predominantly favor those with large legal budgets. Who is going to be more successful in finding and suing LLMs that use unlicensed content? It's going to be the large megacorp copyright holders. CoughDisneyCough.