Copyright, the Rule of Law, and the Perils of an Unchecked AI Gold Rush: An Analysis of Shira Perlmutter's Dismissal and its Ramifications

by Gemini Advanced, Deep Research with 2.5 Pro.

I. Introduction: Copyright at a Crossroads

Contemporary copyright law stands at a critical juncture, buffeted by the dual forces of rapid technological advancement, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI), and potent political pressures. The recent, and reportedly abrupt, dismissal of Shira Perlmutter, the 14th Register of Copyrights, serves as a stark focal point for the concerns animating this report.¹ This event, characterized by at least one member of Congress as a "brazen, unprecedented power grab" linked directly to the Copyright Office's stance on AI and the use of copyrighted materials for training AI models, signals a potentially dangerous inflection point.²

This report will argue that copyright is not merely a specialized domain of commercial law but an indispensable component of the rule of law itself. It underpins predictability, fosters fairness, and contributes to economic and cultural vitality by providing incentives for creativity and the dissemination of knowledge.³ The apparent politicization of copyright administration, coupled with a burgeoning drive to dismantle or significantly weaken established copyright protections in pursuit of an accelerated "AI gold rush," poses a profound threat. Such actions risk eroding not only the creative ecosystems that copyright is designed to nurture but also the very foundations of the rule of law, with potentially severe and far-reaching consequences for the United States and the global order. The central thesis advanced herein is that the perceived imperative for technological dominance, if pursued by circumventing established legal norms and institutions, will ultimately undermine long-term societal well-being and the principles of just governance.

The convergence of advanced AI development with high-stakes political and economic interests has created an environment where foundational legal principles, such as those embodied in copyright law, are increasingly portrayed as impediments rather than enablers of progress. The swift advancement of AI, championed by influential figures and backed by significant capital, inevitably collides with the legal and ethical questions raised by copyright, particularly concerning the use of vast quantities of copyrighted data for training AI models.⁴ This collision generates immense pressure to sideline or dilute copyright protections. The dismissal of a Register of Copyrights, allegedly for upholding a balanced interpretation of these laws, suggests this is not an isolated personnel matter but a potential systemic shift. It indicates a willingness by powerful actors to sacrifice established legal frameworks for perceived short-term technological or economic supremacy, a development that carries substantial risks. Furthermore, the narrative of an "AI arms race" is frequently invoked to justify the circumvention of these established legal norms.⁶ This rhetoric implies an overriding urgency that frames legal and ethical considerations as obstacles to national interest, thereby creating a false dichotomy between innovation and legal protection. Such framing can be used to legitimize actions that weaken copyright and the rule of law, portraying them as necessary sacrifices for competitive advantage, even if they prove detrimental in the long run.

II. Shira Perlmutter: A Career Dedicated to Copyright Integrity and Modernization

Shira Perlmutter's career represents a profound dedication to the integrity, evolution, and effective administration of copyright law. Her extensive experience across academia, government, the private sector, and international organizations established her as a preeminent expert uniquely positioned to navigate the complexities of intellectual property in the 21st century.¹

Prior to her appointment as the 14th Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office in October 2020, Perlmutter served as Chief Policy Officer and Director for International Affairs at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from 2012. In this capacity, she was a key policy advisor on intellectual property matters and oversaw the USPTO's extensive domestic and international IP policy activities.⁸ Her private sector experience includes roles as Executive Vice President for Global Legal Policy at the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property Policy at Time Warner.¹ Internationally, she consulted for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva on copyright and electronic commerce. Her deep roots in the Copyright Office extend back to 1995, when she was appointed its first Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs.¹

Perlmutter's academic contributions are equally significant. She was a law professor at The Catholic University of America from 1990 to 1995, teaching copyright, trademark, unfair competition, and international intellectual property law. During this period, she also served as the copyright consultant to the Clinton Administration's Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure.⁸ She is a co-author of a leading casebook on international intellectual property law and policy, has published numerous articles on copyright issues, and is a research fellow at the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre at Oxford University.⁸ This blend of deep legal scholarship, practical policy-making acumen, and international negotiation experience made her exceptionally qualified to lead the Copyright Office. Each facet of her career provided a distinct lens on intellectual property, cultivating a holistic understanding that is rare and invaluable, particularly in an era of global technological disruption. Her removal signifies not just a change in leadership but a loss of this nuanced institutional knowledge at a critical juncture.

As Register, Perlmutter spearheaded significant efforts to modernize the Copyright Office and adapt its functions to contemporary needs. Testimonies and official reports detail marked improvements in registration processing times, with the average for all claims standing at 1.9 months for the latter half of fiscal 2024, and just 1.2 months for fully electronic claims without correspondence.⁹ She oversaw the launch and expansion of the online recordation pilot, significantly shortening processing times for documents related to copyright ownership, with nearly 90% of recordations being submitted electronically by fiscal 2024.⁹ The development of the Copyright Public Records System (CPRS) expanded online access to registration and recordation data with enhanced search capabilities.⁹

Furthermore, Perlmutter's tenure saw the successful implementation of the Copyright Alternatives in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act, leading to the establishment of the Copyright Claims Board (CCB). By February 2025, the CCB had 1,186 claims filed and had issued 33 final determinations, alongside facilitating 92 settlement agreements.⁹ Her office was also deeply involved in educational outreach regarding the Music Modernization Act (MMA), ensuring songwriters understood how to claim ownership and receive royalties.¹⁰ Critically, under her leadership, the Copyright Office engaged deeply with the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright, issuing comprehensive reports and completing DMCA Section 1201 rulemakings.⁹Representative Joe Morelle lauded her tenure for having "propelled the Copyright Office into the 21st century by comprehensively modernizing its operations and setting global standards on the intersection of AI and intellectual property".² This consistent focus on modernization and adaptation underscores her role as a forward-thinking leader, committed to ensuring copyright law remained relevant and effective, rather than an impediment to progress. This proactive stance contrasts sharply with any agenda that might seek to bypass or weaken established copyright principles for the sake of expediency, particularly in the context of AI development.

Table 1: Key Roles and Achievements of Shira Perlmutter

III. Copyright: The Unseen Bedrock of the Rule of Law

Copyright law, often perceived as a specialized area of commercial regulation, is in fact a fundamental component of the broader rule of law. The rule of law, in its essence, dictates that a society is governed by established, consistently applied principles rather than arbitrary power, ensuring stability, predictability, and fairness.¹¹ It encompasses formalist conceptions—that laws be general, public, prospective, consistent, equally applied, clear, and stable—and substantive conceptions, which include the protection of fundamental rights and the assurance of accountability.¹¹ A robust rule of law framework is critical for instilling legal certainty and business confidence, facilitating investment and growth, promoting fair competition, enhancing governance, and fostering social cohesion.¹³ Copyright law directly embodies and advances these core tenets.

At its heart, copyright grants creators clearly defined, exclusive property rights in their original works of authorship.³ This creation of a federally protected property interest provides the legal certainty and predictability essential for creators and the industries that invest in their work. Knowing that their rights will be recognized and upheld encourages authors, artists, musicians, and innovators to invest their time, talent, and resources in producing new works. This aligns directly with the rule of law's requirement for clear, stable, and enforceable rights, fostering an environment where creative and economic activity can flourish.¹³

The primary constitutional objective of copyright in the United States is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".³ By granting these exclusive rights, copyright provides crucial economic incentives that stimulate artistic creativity and the dissemination of works for the ultimate benefit of the public.³ This incentive structure contributes to economic order and growth, a key outcome of a society governed by the rule of law.¹³ As some economic theories of copyright suggest, copyright itself is not the sole incentive; rather, by establishing enforceable rights, it paves the way for contracts between rights holders and users, and it is these contracts that provide remuneration and drive creation.¹⁶ Without the underlying legal framework of copyright, such contractual arrangements in the creative sphere would be largely impossible or unenforceable, severely diluting incentives.

Moreover, copyright law inherently seeks a balance between protecting private rights and serving the public interest, a characteristic that reflects the broader concern for fairness within the rule of law. Doctrines such as fair use allow for certain unlicensed uses of copyrighted works for purposes like criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.³ The fundamental principle of the idea-expression dichotomy—protecting the specific expression of an idea but not the idea itself—ensures that while authors are rewarded for their unique contributions, the underlying concepts, facts, and systems remain freely available for others to build upon.³ This carefully calibrated balance is crucial. It mirrors the rule of law's objective to protect individual rights while ensuring that the public domain remains vibrant and accessible, preventing the monopolization of knowledge and fostering continued innovation. A weakening of copyright could disrupt this balance, potentially leading to market failure if expression is inadequately protected, or, conversely, stifling progress if the distinction blurs and ideas become effectively privatized.

The formal administration of copyright law through institutions like the U.S. Copyright Office, which is tasked with administering the nation's copyright laws and providing impartial assistance to Congress, the courts, and executive branch agencies ⁸, further demonstrates its alignment with rule of law principles. The existence of a structured system for registration (though voluntary, it offers significant benefits in enforcement), recordation of transfers, and a legal framework for adjudicating infringement claims ¹⁷exemplifies a non-arbitrary, rules-based approach to governance.

The erosion of such a system, particularly if driven by arbitrary executive action or the undue influence of powerful private interests, would directly undermine the predictability and stability that are hallmarks of the rule of law. If copyright, a clearly defined property right, can be readily weakened or its impartial administration compromised due to political pressure, the legal framework governing a multi-trillion-dollar sector of the economy becomes dangerously unpredictable.² This would inevitably chill investment and innovation in creative industries, as creators and businesses lose confidence in the system's ability to safeguard their rights and provide a level playing field—an outcome contrary to copyright's foundational purpose and detrimental to the economic benefits fostered by a strong rule of law.¹³

Furthermore, the international dimension of copyright cannot be overlooked.³ The United States is a party to numerous international agreements establishing minimum standards of copyright protection. A weakening of copyright principles or its enforcement mechanisms in a leading nation like the U.S. would inevitably have a destabilizing effect on global intellectual property norms. This could undermine decades of effort towards international legal harmonization, impacting global trade in creative goods and services and potentially leading to a more fragmented and contentious international IP landscape. Such a development would run counter to the broader goal of fostering a predictable and rules-based global order.

IV. The Dismissal of the Register: A Challenge to Institutional Independence and the Rule of Law

The reported dismissal of Shira Perlmutter as Register of Copyrights on May 10, 2025, by the Trump administration raises profound concerns regarding the independence of the U.S. Copyright Office and the integrity of the rule of law.¹ According to multiple sources, her termination occurred shortly after the Copyright Office, under her leadership, issued a comprehensive report concerning artificial intelligence and the use of copyrighted materials in training AI models.¹ This report, while acknowledging the transformative potential of AI, underscored that the use of copyrighted works in AI training implicates the exclusive rights of copyright holders and that fair use is not a universal defense, particularly for commercial AI systems that generate expressive content competitive with original works.⁴

Significantly, the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, who appointed Perlmutter, was also reportedly dismissed by the Trump administration earlier the same week.¹Representative Joe Morelle, the ranking Democrat on the Committee on House Administration, issued a strong condemnation, stating, "Donald Trump's termination of Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, is a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis. It is surely no coincidence he acted less than a day after she refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk's efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models".² This accusation directly links Perlmutter's dismissal to her Office's stance on a critical policy issue and implicates specific, powerful private interests.

This alleged course of events constitutes a serious challenge to several core principles of the rule of law. Firstly, it threatens to undermine the institutional independence of the Copyright Office. The Register of Copyrights, though an appointee, heads an office that is part of the legislative branch and provides impartial expert advice to Congress, the courts, and executive branch agencies on copyright law and policy.² If the head of such an office can be dismissed due to the substance of a policy report or for resisting external pressures to adopt a particular stance favorable to certain interests, the office's capacity to provide unbiased, expert guidance is severely compromised. This transforms the office from an independent administrator of law into an entity susceptible to political whim, directly contravening the rule of law's demand for stable, non-arbitrary governance and institutions that operate with a degree of autonomy from partisan politics.¹¹ The Register of Copyrights is a legislative branch employee; an executive branch decision to terminate this official over policy disagreements, particularly concerning advice rendered to Congress, signals a potential overreach of executive power and a disregard for the separation of powers—a cornerstone of the U.S. constitutional order and, by extension, the rule of law.² Such an action could be interpreted as an attempt by the executive to control the flow of information and expert analysis to the legislative branch, thereby undermining Congress's Article One authority and its ability to legislate effectively based on independent assessments.

Secondly, if the dismissal was indeed retaliatory for a policy position articulated in the AI report, it represents an arbitrary exercise of power. The rule of law, as famously articulated by A.V. Dicey, posits the supremacy of regular law over the arbitrary exercise of power by those in authority.¹¹ Removing a highly qualified public servant, whose career and accomplishments (detailed in Section II) demonstrate profound expertise and dedication, for reasons other than demonstrable malfeasance or incompetence, suggests a disregard for due process and merit in favor of political expediency or allegiance to specific commercial agendas.

The explicit implication of a private actor, Elon Musk, in the motivation behind Perlmutter's dismissal is particularly alarming.² If a key regulatory official can be removed for failing to "rubber-stamp" the agenda of a powerful corporate leader, it points towards a scenario of undue influence or even regulatory capture. This is antithetical to the rule of law's requirement for equality before the law and governance conducted in the public interest, rather than for the benefit of select private entities.¹¹It suggests that the development and application of legal frameworks, such as copyright, could be swayed not by principles of public good or balanced interests, but by the concentrated power of influential individuals or corporations, thereby eroding public trust and the legitimacy of the legal system.

Furthermore, such a high-profile dismissal, closely following the release of a significant policy report on a contentious issue, inevitably creates a chilling effect across other governmental agencies and among public servants.¹ It sends a clear message that providing candid, evidence-based advice or upholding established legal principles may carry severe personal and professional risks if such advice conflicts with the prevailing political winds or powerful commercial objectives. This fosters a climate of fear and self-censorship, discouraging the very expertise and independent judgment that are crucial for sound policymaking. Decisions may then be driven by ideology or expediency rather than impartial analysis, significantly weakening the quality and integrity of governance, especially in complex and rapidly evolving fields like artificial intelligence. This disregard for expert advice in favor of political considerations ultimately harms the public interest.

V. The AI Imperative: Why Trump and Musk Seek to Sidestep Copyright

The alleged actions leading to Shira Perlmutter's dismissal, and the broader calls to dilute intellectual property protections, appear to be driven by a perceived imperative to accelerate artificial intelligence development without the encumbrances of existing copyright law. This agenda is discernible in the policy direction of the Trump administration and the public pronouncements and business strategies of influential tech leaders like Elon Musk.

The Trump administration has consistently signaled a policy focused on achieving "US technological supremacy" and "global AI dominance".⁶ Executive orders, such as the one issued on January 23, 2025, titled "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence," aim to "sustain and enhance America's global AI dominance" by promoting innovation, often with less explicit emphasis on the ethical, safety, and data protection concerns that characterized previous frameworks.⁶ This approach involves directives to federal authorities to develop action plans for enhancing U.S. competitiveness in AI, working closely with tech sector leaders like David Sacks, appointed to oversee this mission.⁶ The overarching goal is to accelerate research and development and remove regulatory hurdles perceived as stifling private sector innovation.⁶

Elon Musk, a prominent figure in the AI field with his company xAI, has been even more explicit in his views on intellectual property. Alongside Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, Musk has called for the abolition of "all IP law," including copyright and patents.⁵Musk's oft-repeated assertion that "patents are for the weak" reflects a belief that such legal protections hinder innovation rather than foster it.⁵ This stance aligns with the operational needs of AI developers who require access to vast quantities of data for training sophisticated models like xAI's Grok, which leverages data from X (formerly Twitter).²⁰ While xAI's terms of service grant the company broad rights to use user content for training (with an opt-out for logged-in users), the desire for unrestricted access to broader datasets, including copyrighted material, is a logical extension of the ambition to build leading AI systems.²⁰ The argument that eliminating IP laws would "unlock greater creativity, accelerate AI advancements" directly serves this ambition by removing potential legal barriers and licensing costs.¹⁹ This call to "abolish all IP law" is not merely an abstract philosophical position; it represents a pragmatic, if radical, strategy to eliminate significant legal risks and operational costs associated with training AI models on the massive datasets they require. It is, in effect, a pursuit of a "legal subsidy" for AI development, where the costs (loss of licensing revenue, devaluation of creative work) are externalized onto creators and copyright holders.

In this context, the U.S. Copyright Office's May 2025 report on "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence" ⁴ would be viewed as a significant "barrier." The report concluded that the unauthorized use of copyrighted works in the training of AI models implicates the exclusive rights of copyright owners and that such uses are not automatically excused by fair use.⁴ It stressed that fair use analysis is a case-by-case determination, and that uses which result in AI-generated outputs competing in the market with the copyrighted training data are less likely to be considered fair.⁴ The report also highlighted the potential for significant market harm to copyright holders, including lost sales and market dilution through stylistically similar AI-generated content, and noted the emergence of voluntary licensing markets for AI training data.⁴Crucially, the Office recommended allowing these licensing markets to develop further without immediate statutory intervention like compulsory licensing.⁴

These findings—the need for potential licensing, the uncertainty surrounding fair use for many commercial AI applications, the acknowledgement of market harm, and the preference for market-based licensing solutions—collectively represent substantial hurdles for those aiming for rapid, low-cost, and legally unencumbered AI development. The requirement to negotiate licenses, the risk of infringement lawsuits if fair use is not applicable, and the potential for significant financial outlays for data access are all seen as impediments to winning the "AI arms race".⁴ The Copyright Office's stance, which also reaffirms that copyright protection requires human authorship and thus AI-generated outputs per se are not copyrightable without sufficient human creative input, further complicates the landscape for those seeking to maximize the commercial exploitation of AI with minimal legal friction.²³

Table 2: Contrasting Copyright Office Stance on AI Training Data Use with AI Proponents' Desired Freedoms

The Trump administration's emphasis on "AI supremacy" and "removing barriers" ⁶, if interpreted as a mandate to dismantle regulatory frameworks perceived as slow or costly, could inadvertently favor a concentration of AI power. While ostensibly pro-innovation, a broad weakening of IP protections might not democratize AI development. Instead, entities with massive pre-existing proprietary datasets (such as social media platforms now integrated with AI ventures ²¹) or those with the sheer resources to rapidly ingest and process data in a legally ambiguous or weakened IP environment would gain a significant competitive advantage. This scenario could stifle smaller innovators and startups that lack such data troves or the legal fortitude to navigate a chaotic landscape, potentially leading to monopolies or oligopolies in foundational AI models. This outcome would be contrary to the ideal of fostering widespread, diverse innovation.

Furthermore, the persistent argument from some AI developers that training AI models on copyrighted works constitutes a "transformative fair use" is being pushed to its conceptual limits.⁴ There is an attempt to redefine "transformative" in a way that focuses almost exclusively on the technological process of creating the AI model, while decoupling it from the traditional fair use consideration of market harm to the original works, especially when the AI's outputs directly compete with or substitute for those original works. The Copyright Office's report, by contrast, maintained a more nuanced view, acknowledging transformative purpose in some training contexts but also giving significant weight to the nature of the AI's output and its market impact.⁴ If the more expansive interpretation of transformative use favored by some AI proponents prevails, it could profoundly devalue creative works by permitting their uncompensated use to train direct competitors, thereby fundamentally altering the economic incentives for human creativity. The dismissal of a Register who championed a balanced approach can thus be seen as a strategic move to clear the path for a more permissive IP environment conducive to an unfettered AI development agenda.

VI. The Steep Price of Expediency: Eroding Trust and Long-Term Stability

The pursuit of rapid AI development through the circumvention or weakening of copyright law and established legal norms, as allegedly exemplified by the dismissal of Register Perlmutter, carries a steep and multifaceted price. While the allure of technological leadership and economic windfalls is potent, achieving these aims by undermining foundational principles will likely prove detrimental to long-term societal trust, legal stability, and sustainable innovation.

One of the most immediate casualties of such actions is public trust in legal and regulatory institutions. When the head of an independent agency, tasked with impartial administration of the law, is reportedly removed for political reasons or due to pressure from powerful commercial interests, the perceived integrity and impartiality of that institution—and by extension, similar bodies—are diminished.² If these institutions are viewed as mere instruments of political will or corporate agendas rather than objective arbiters of law and policy, their legitimacy suffers, and public compliance with and respect for the legal system erodes.

As argued previously, these actions directly assault the core tenets of the rule of law: predictability, fairness, accountability, and non-arbitrary governance.¹¹ When established procedures are flouted and expert advice is seemingly punished, the legal environment becomes less stable and more susceptible to capricious decision-making. This has long-term negative consequences for societal stability and economic development, as businesses and individuals become hesitant to invest and innovate in an unpredictable legal climate.¹³

The creative industries, which in the U.S. represent a significant economic and cultural force (a "trillion-dollar industry" according to Rep. Morelle ²), are particularly vulnerable. Weakening copyright protection or creating massive uncertainty regarding the use of copyrighted works in AI training directly reduces the incentives for authors, artists, musicians, filmmakers, and software developers to create and invest in new works.³ If the legal framework fails to provide a reasonable expectation of return on creative labor, or if creators face uncompensated competition from AI systems trained on their own works, the wellspring of human creativity may diminish. This not only harms the livelihoods of individual creators but also leads to a less vibrant cultural landscape and a potential decline in the quality and diversity of content available to the public and for future AI training. The instability of copyright also weakens the contractual basis upon which these industries operate, as the value and enforceability of rights become uncertain.¹⁶

An unstable or politically manipulated intellectual property regime also breeds legal chaos. Far from streamlining innovation, it can lead to an explosion of litigation as parties seek to define the boundaries of permissible conduct in a shifting legal landscape. This uncertainty becomes a drag on innovation for all players, including AI developers who may face unpredictable legal challenges or a public backlash against perceived overreach.

Moreover, prioritizing speed and deregulation in AI development over careful consideration of issues like copyright can signal a broader neglect of other critical ethical considerations. The Trump administration's AI executive orders, for instance, have been noted for emphasizing innovation and U.S. dominance with arguably less focus on safety, data protection, and societal impacts compared to other frameworks.⁶ If foundational legal principles are readily set aside in one area, it creates a precedent for overlooking ethical blind spots in others, potentially leading to the deployment of AI systems that are biased, unsafe, or manipulative.

The narrative of an "AI gold rush" is particularly apt here. Historically, gold rushes have often been characterized by a frenetic pursuit of immediate wealth, frequently accompanied by a disregard for existing rights, environmental safeguards, and long-term social consequences. Similarly, an AI development strategy that prioritizes rapid exploitation of data resources (including copyrighted works) without due regard for established legal frameworks risks causing significant, lasting damage to the creative ecosystem and the rule of law. The short-term gains in technological advancement or market positioning may be dwarfed by the long-term harm to the legal, economic, and cultural fabric of society. A climate where independent expert advice within government is suppressed or punished, as alleged in Perlmutter's case, exacerbates this risk. It can lead to "policy by echo chamber," where decisions are made without rigorous scrutiny, diverse perspectives, or consideration of countervailing evidence. In a field as complex and impactful as artificial intelligence, this lack of critical, independent input dramatically increases the risk of significant policy failures and severe unintended consequences, undermining the very progress it seeks to achieve.

VII. Cascading Consequences: Ramifications for the U.S. and the Global Order

The actions and trends discussed—the dismissal of a high-ranking copyright official allegedly for upholding established legal principles against pressures for unfettered AI development, and the broader push to weaken copyright in pursuit of technological supremacy—are poised to unleash a cascade of negative consequences for the United States and the global order. These ramifications span economic, legal, societal, and international domains.

Table 3: Potential Consequences of Undermining Copyright and the Rule of Law

Economically, the devaluation of intellectual property rights threatens the vitality of American creative industries, which contribute significantly to GDP and employment.²If the legal framework fails to provide adequate incentives for human creativity, or if creators cannot control or be compensated for the use of their works in training AI systems that then compete against them, the pipeline of new, original content could constrict.³ This not only impacts current revenue streams but also diminishes the cultural richness and innovative output of the nation. Paradoxically, this could even harm long-term AI development, as the quality and diversity of training data—largely derived from human-created works—stagnate or decline. The "AI arms race" narrative, if it leads to the erosion of copyright, could thus result in AI systems trained on increasingly outdated or lower-quality data, ultimately hindering the very AI progress it seeks to accelerate. This creates a negative feedback loop where the "gold rush" depletes the "mine" of human creativity essential for future AI advancement.

Legally and in terms of governance within the U.S., the consequences are equally severe. The weakening of the rule of law through political interference in independent agencies and the arbitrary application of legal principles erodes public trust and institutional integrity.¹³ It fosters an environment of uncertainty that is detrimental to all, including businesses that rely on stable legal frameworks. If foundational principles like copyright are easily dismissed for expediency, it becomes substantially more challenging to establish coherent, ethical, and effective governance frameworks for the more complex risks associated with advanced AI, such as bias, safety, and national security implications.

Societally, the impact on individual creators could be devastating, potentially leading to widespread job displacement and a devaluation of human artistic and intellectual labor.²⁸ An over-reliance on AI for content generation also risks a homogenization of culture, where outputs become increasingly derivative of past works rather than reflecting genuinely novel human perspectives. Furthermore, a development ethos that sidelines copyright concerns may also neglect other crucial ethical considerations, leading to AI systems that perpetuate biases, compromise privacy, or are deployed in manipulative ways.

Internationally, a U.S. retreat from its historical position as a champion of strong intellectual property protection would have significant global repercussions. It could damage U.S. leadership and credibility in international IP forums and trade negotiations. Other countries, particularly those also vying for AI dominance, might be emboldened to follow suit by weakening their own IP laws, potentially triggering a global "race to the bottom" that harms creators worldwide and unravels decades of international copyright harmonization efforts.³ This could lead to increased trade disputes and make it far more difficult to achieve international consensus on responsible AI governance, as the U.S. might be perceived as prioritizing unilateral advantage over established global norms and cooperative frameworks.⁶ A U.S. retreat from strong copyright principles could create a vacuum in global IP leadership, potentially filled by actors with different agendas, such as nations prioritizing state control over information or those with historically weaker traditions of creator rights. This could lead to a more fragmented, unpredictable, and ultimately less creator-friendly international IP system.

VIII. Conclusion: Reaffirming the Primacy of Law in an Age of Technological Disruption

This report has detailed the distinguished career of Shira Perlmutter, underscoring her commitment to the integrity and modernization of copyright law. It has argued that copyright is not an arcane set of commercial rules but a vital pillar of the rule of law, essential for fostering creativity, economic stability, and a predictable legal environment. The circumstances surrounding her alleged dismissal as Register of Copyrights, reportedly linked to her office's principled stance on the complex issues at the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright, signal a deeply concerning trend: the potential subordination of established legal principles and institutional independence to the perceived exigencies of an "AI gold rush" driven by powerful political and commercial interests.

The motivations of figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk to accelerate AI development by attempting to sidestep or dismantle copyright protections, as evidenced by policy directives and public statements, reveal a view of intellectual property as an obstacle rather than an enabler. The U.S. Copyright Office's comprehensive report on AI and copyright, which sought to apply existing legal frameworks in a balanced manner, was evidently perceived as such a barrier by those advocating for unfettered access to copyrighted materials for AI training.

The price for such expediency, however, is unacceptably high. It involves the erosion of trust in legal institutions, direct damage to the rule of law, the potential devastation of creative industries, and the creation of legal and ethical chaos that could ultimately hinder sustainable innovation. The cascading consequences for the United States and the global order—ranging from economic disruption and diminished institutional integrity to a decline in cultural vibrancy and the weakening of international legal norms—are severe and far-reaching.

The current conflict over copyright and AI serves as a critical test case for how democratic societies will navigate the tension between transformative technological innovation and foundational legal and ethical frameworks. The path chosen will set precedents for addressing future technological disruptions. If established legal principles and the independence of expert institutions are readily sacrificed for short-term technological or economic advantage, the capacity of society to manage change responsibly is dangerously diminished.

Therefore, the pursuit of technological advancement, however compelling, cannot come at the expense of the rule of law. A robust and adaptable legal framework is not an impediment to progress but its most crucial prerequisite. It provides the trust, predictability, and ethical scaffolding necessary for innovation that serves broad societal interests, not just narrow commercial or political ambitions. Reaffirming the primacy of law, supporting the independence and expertise of regulatory and advisory bodies, and insisting on a balanced approach to emerging technologies that respects fundamental rights while fostering responsible innovation are paramount. Only by upholding these principles can society ensure that the profound transformations wrought by artificial intelligence ultimately contribute to human flourishing and a just global order.

Works cited

1. Shira Perlmutter - Wikipedia, accessed May 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shira_Perlmutter

2. Morelle's Statement on Abrupt Firing of Shira Perlmutter, Register of ..., accessed May 11, 2025, https://democrats-cha.house.gov/media/press-releases/morelles-statement-abrupt-firing-shira-perlmutter-register-copyrights

3. Copyright basics - USPTO, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/copyright-policy/copyright-basics

4. www.copyright.gov, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf

5. Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk Call for Abolition of "All IP Law", accessed May 11, 2025, https://patentlyo.com/patent/2025/04/jack-dorsey-abolition.html

6. A Review of AI Governance in the United States: Trump's New Executive Order - Fasken, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/2025/04/a-review-of-ai-governance-in-the-united-states-trumps-new-executive-order

7. March 2025 AI Developments Under the Trump Administration, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2025/04/march-2025-ai-developments-under-the-trump-administration/

8. www.copyright.gov, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.copyright.gov/about/leadership/bio-perlmutter.pdf

9. Written Statement of Shira Perlmutter Register of Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office Before the Subcommittee on the, accessed May 11, 2025, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP24/20250408/118103/HHRG-119-AP24-Wstate-PerlmutterS-20250408.pdf

10. Statement of Shira Perlmutter Register of Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office Before the Committee on the Judiciar - Congress.gov, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/112565/witnesses/HHRG-117-JU00-Wstate-PerlmutterS-20210505.pdf

11. Rule of law - Wikipedia, accessed May 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

12. Rule of Law Materials - JURISTnews - law students reporting the rule of law in crisis, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.jurist.org/rule-of-law-materials/

13. Upholding Prosperity: The Economic Benefits of the Rule of Law - American Bar Association, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/global-programs/news/2024/upholding-prosperity-economic-benefits-rule-law/

14. What is Copyright?, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

15. Intro to IPR, Part 1—Economic Incentive Theory - Debate Decoded, accessed May 11, 2025, https://debate-decoded.ghost.io/intro-to-ipr-part-1-economic-incentive-theory/

16. Economic Theory of Copyright Contracts - Digital Commons @ Georgia Law, accessed May 11, 2025, https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1102&context=jipl

17. Copyright in General (FAQ), accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

18. Trump Administration Issues AI Memoranda and Executive Order with Government Contracts Impacts | Insights | Holland & Knight, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/04/trump-administration-issues-ai-memoranda-and-executive-order

19. Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk Call to 'Delete All IP Law' - Perplexity, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.perplexity.ai/page/jack-dorsey-and-elon-musk-call-nLediHtgRhudPAtW9n7MDA

20. Terms of Service - Consumer | xAI, accessed May 11, 2025, https://x.ai/legal/terms-of-service

21. Elon Musk merges xAI and X to create XAI Holdings | Digital Watch Observatory, accessed May 11, 2025, https://dig.watch/updates/elon-musk-merges-xai-and-x-to-create-xai-holdings

22. US Copyright issues pre-publication version of 3rd Report on AI Training and Fair Use. AI training is transformative, but degree depends on how AI functions. Supports new market dilution theory of harm under Factor 4. - Chat GPT Is Eating the World, accessed May 11, 2025, https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/05/10/us-copyright-issues-pre-publication-version-of-3rd-report-on-ai-training-and-fair-use-ai-training-is-transformative-but-degree-depends-on-how-ai-functions-supports-new-market-dilution-theory-of-ha/

23. Copyright Office Solidifies Stance on the Copyrightability of AI-Generated Works, accessed May 11, 2025, https://perkinscoie.com/insights/update/copyright-office-solidifies-stance-copyrightability-ai-generated-works

24. Recent Developments in AI, Art & Copyright: Copyright Office Report & New Registrations, accessed May 11, 2025, https://itsartlaw.org/2025/03/04/recent-developments-in-ai-art-copyright-copyright-office-report-new-registrations/

25. Copyright Office Releases New Report on Copyrightability of AI Works, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/copyright-office-releases-new-report-on-copyrightability-of-ai-works

26. AI and Copyright: Expanding Copyright Hurts Everyone—Here's What to Do Instead, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/ai-and-copyright-expanding-copyright-hurts-everyone-heres-what-do-instead

27. Copyright Guide: Subscribe to News - LibGuides at Tulsa Community College, accessed May 11, 2025, https://guides.library.tulsacc.edu/copyright/News/ai-training-data-dilemma-legal-experts-argue-for-fair-use-forbes

28. Copyright alone cannot protect the future of creative work - Brookings Institution, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/copyright-alone-cannot-protect-the-future-of-creative-work/

29. Artificial Intelligence and the Creative Double Bind - Harvard Law Review, accessed May 11, 2025, https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/artificial-intelligence-and-the-creative-double-bind/