The thing is, we aren't really talking about AI here. We are talking about datasets being used to train AI and the companies offering the services of a trained

The thing is, we aren't really talking about AI here. We are talking about datasets being used to train AI and the companies offering the services of a trained AI. If a company trained their own AI on their own code, the discussion would be very different (likely centred on moral issues rather than legal ones). We probably won't ever have a discussion about companies submitting proprietary code to train an AI created by a third-party since there would be a contract between the two parties (and it is unlikely a company will submit proprietary code to train an AI that will be used by others in the first place). What we are looking at is a kin to a company that makes paint brushes, trains graphics artists, and contracts out their graphics artists to use those paint brushes. If it turned out that the graphics artists turned out derivative works without the rights holder's permission, you can be assured that people would want to "sue the company that sold the paintbrush". I'm not going to claim that my example is equivalent to what is happening with these AI services. And while you may be right about AI fundamentally being a tool, like a paint brush, I would suggest that is only true if you ignore the data that is fed into it.