> If a human is allowed to consume content and be informed/influenced by it then I don’t see any reason why an algorithm can’t. Algorithms aren't "informed".

> If a human is allowed to consume content and be informed/influenced by it then I don’t see any reason why an algorithm can’t. Algorithms aren't "informed". Even if that content is indeed part of the human, that doesn't let the human violate copyright law, so why should the algorithm have additional rights? We've long established that passing on information can be fine, or can be illegal, depending on the circumstances. That's true for people, so why not for algorithms? For example, if you read a book on how to repair a television and then subsequently write a book on how to repair a television, with a structure drawn from the book you read, then it's a copyright violation and you may have to pay damages. It's best you work out a license agreement first with the copyright holder. The argument here is that the individual copyright holders should be allowed to work out a license agreement, rather than letting the UK government provide a default agreement on an opt-out basis. If you want to change copyright law, say so, and provide suggestions. That "problematic" covers up a big pot of worms.