This is an actively litigated and unsettled area of law. You, and nobody else, can say any of this with confidence until these lawsuits get to a judge, and even then it’s per jurisdiction rulings. The US, EU, and Japan may end up with different rulings. International trade agreements may be updated. Industry may settle on some sort of broadly acceptable revenue sharing model.

The point is: nobody knows and the AI companies are getting well ahead of the law.

Those cases are about applying these principals to specific events/facts.

But what part about what I said do you believe to be undecided?

That a human can learn without violating copyright? That a machine can learn without violating copyright?

Literally everything about ML training and IP is undecided.

Lol thinking those are outside the law

The law is interpreted anew each day. Nothing is outside the law.

Perhaps if all rules were written in stone, and clear of ambiguity, we would not need judges or the legal process. But that’s not how any of this works.

Reproducing is a special case of learning.

No. You can reproduce the works of Shakespeare without learning them, and you can learn the works of Shakespeare without being able to reproduce them.

There is some overlap, but if you think you've found some undiscovered loophole in centuries of copyright law, you're mistaken.