Please revise/ modify this draft. suggestions below：
Overall Feedback
The first paragraph is just two sentences and only introduces the topic. This is not a complete paragraph. The second one is all factual background, which we don’t need until after we get to the thesis and the road map. It takes to the fourth paragraph to get back to the essential part of the introduction.
The thesis looks good, but details will have to be provided later. Keep in mind that the thesis needs to be something a reasonable person could disagree with. In your road map, you say you will give arguments for the opposite view, but you do not want to do that. The purpose of considering alternative views is to give arguments for why they are the wrong answer, not to argue for them.
Section 2 – there is a basic issue that needs to be addressed before these claims in the first paragraph make sense. The issue is this: How is ti possible to violate someone’s copyright if there is no way to tell if their work was used? In non-AI cases, we always need to be able to show that this text or piece of music is similar enough to the original to call it a copyright violation. If no one can tell, then that means it isn’t one. How did that idea change for AI? That seems mysterious without explanation. The claim that maybe no one could tell is foundational to the argument here. You also don’t need access to the algorithm. If text produced is similar enough, then it violates copyright. If not, it doesn’t. That’s how we do it for a human author, so why not the same test for AI? You also claim that copyright owners have limited legal ways to proceed, but why is that the case? Are AI exempt from existing laws?
The section beginning at the end of page five about benefits of transparency is not as helpful as it might seem. If you can show that AI violating copyright is an issue, then it should be obvious that identifying the violation is a good thing. So what we really need here is something about how we do that.
Section 3 suffers the same problem already mentioned. It should not matter if a text was produced by a human writer or by an AI to determine if it violated copyright. If the text produced is similar enough to a copyrighted text in the right ways, it is a violation. Sometimes it can be hard to decide, but the test is clear enough. You have not shown that the test should be any different for AI, so the boundary issue is not clearly one that matters.
Page 9 argues that openness is good for the law, but what that means is not clear. Maybe this is just the same problem as above, but if you are proposing new legal remedies you should say how openness would help with that in particular.
Section 5 deals with arguments that are practical, not ethical. This is not really the right type of objection to discuss. Again, in a pre-AI world, one could say that copyright law in general stifles possible creative output, but that does not seem like a strong argument against any copyright laws.
