Some of your points are interesting, but let's back up. You might want to read this article: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_of_exp

Some of your points are interesting, but let's back up. You might want to read this article: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_of_expression https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_o... Your brain is immune from copyright lawsuits as being a derivative work because your brain is not a tangible medium of expression. Your thoughts are not derivative works under the copyright act because your thoughts, seeing as they are not contained in a tangible medium of expression, are not works at all. Computers are clearly tangible mediums of expression. We can argue whether a particular piece of software is copyrightable or whether a dataset is protected under the copyright act's definition of compilations. But it should not be up for debate whether whatever is happening in your brain when you learn something is in any way relevant in terms of copyright law. I would also add the idea- expression dichotomy is irrelevent. If the dataset was merely ideas like "A boy goes to Wizard school" then you might win on that ground. But if you feed it the complete works of Harry Potter, no court is going to claim that the data the machine created based on Harry Potter is an "idea".