It does not, and both uses are fine.

It doesn't, unless the torrent later becomes unavailable. Then the AI trained with is the only "copy" left.

If anything, the law should require that they seed their training data so that the competitive landscape converges on actual technological innovation and not moat building through data destruction.

The sites copied by Google Search explicitly allow it.

The books copied by Meta, explicitly disallow it, and require payment for distribution.

The sites indexed often don't explicitly allow it. I can see my website in the index of web search engines that I never opted in to.

I'm not unhappy about it; but was never consulted.

Linking is different from copying, and fortunately the last case I remember allows it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticketmaster_Corp._v._Tickets.....

But how did can Google index a site without copying it to their servers?

Tell me you've never googled lyrics without telling me.....

Sources are linked below the lyrics though!

Information wants to be free.

That's fine and dandy as part of a free as in beer ethos. When 'information' wants to pad the quarterly earnings statement of a gigantic corporation that exists only by grinding the suffering of fellow humans into a fine marketable paste I am somewhat less sympathetic. Information should be free. To people, for non-commercial use.

Perhaps. However, information won't be produced, if the already tenuous financial positions of authors is removed.

Things should be free, as in speech, not as in beer. Especially in this case. The giants of Silicon Valley could in fact purchase these rights.

Few authors care about people personally enjoying a product through otherwise means. They do care about mass distribution without attribution, without royalty, and without regard.

Information isn't copyrightable, at least in the US. Only creative works. But I get what you are saying.