I think it is not completely off topic. Here is how I see it:
Engineers tend to globally think that LLMs are not really a problem for copyright holders. At least those who develop LLMs pretty clearly don't give a damn. And on top of that, it is in their interest to not be constrained by copyrights.
If this is my feeling (that engineers globally don't care about copyright holders), then it seems reasonable to me that non-engineers could feel the same. That sounds fair, doesn't it?
So those people start speaking up when they see a situation where they feel like "it is happening". And because they don't really know the technology, it is hard for them to know if this particular case is a problem or not. And they can't really trust engineers to tell them, because engineers built LLMs in the first place, and really it does not seem like they care about copyright holders.
Finally, engineers see this reaction from authors, and instead of trying to understand where they come from, they dismiss their opinion. Which probably will reinforce the feeling that engineers don't remotely understand the concerns of those people, and keep building their AI-powered laundering machines. Again, engineers working on those technologies in big companies have absolutely no interest in even considering that it is a problem. Because they get a big salary to help their big company get more profitable, even if it kills many jobs and is a net loss for society (because they benefit from that).
To rephrase in my own understanding of what you wrote:
1) Some engineers (or more broadly, software developers) do not respect copyright
2) Therefore you reasonably are skeptical of projects related to material under copyright.
3) It is not always obvious if a project is respectful of copyright.
Now, applying these #1,#2,#3 you believe they justify the outrage for this particular project.
I disagree, because outrage combined with a lack of understanding (#3) is pretty much my definition of a knee-jerk reaction and vastly counterproductive to the interests of copyright holders because it will make the dismissiveness you predict a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> you believe they justify the outrage for this particular project.
No, I believe it explains it.
> it will make the dismissiveness you predict a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That's the thing: both parties need to listen to each other. The problem here is not this particular project, but the fact that we are not addressing the bigger concern which is LLMs.
IMHO, it is completely useless to try to solve this particular case, because it will happen over and over again. We need to address the LLM issue.
Engineers tend to globally think that LLMs are not really a problem for copyright holders. At least those who develop LLMs pretty clearly don't give a damn. And on top of that, it is in their interest to not be constrained by copyrights.
If this is my feeling (that engineers globally don't care about copyright holders), then it seems reasonable to me that non-engineers could feel the same. That sounds fair, doesn't it?
So those people start speaking up when they see a situation where they feel like "it is happening". And because they don't really know the technology, it is hard for them to know if this particular case is a problem or not. And they can't really trust engineers to tell them, because engineers built LLMs in the first place, and really it does not seem like they care about copyright holders.
Finally, engineers see this reaction from authors, and instead of trying to understand where they come from, they dismiss their opinion. Which probably will reinforce the feeling that engineers don't remotely understand the concerns of those people, and keep building their AI-powered laundering machines. Again, engineers working on those technologies in big companies have absolutely no interest in even considering that it is a problem. Because they get a big salary to help their big company get more profitable, even if it kills many jobs and is a net loss for society (because they benefit from that).