In a world bursting at the seams with over 8 billion people, it’s becoming increasingly clear that our current copyright laws are woefully outdated. As AI advances, producing and remixing content at unprecedented speeds, the boundaries of creativity, ownership, and expression are being tested like never before. People are throwing around accusations of plagiarism, especially when it comes to AI-generated content, but here's the truth: to an extent, all information is plagiarized. Think about it. No single person invented the language we speak. Every word, phrase, and concept we use is built on the shoulders of generations past. So how can anyone really claim they own an idea in its entirety?

When news organizations or content creators accuse AI of stealing their work, we have to ask: is this really about protecting creativity, or is it about controlling expression? With billions of people on this planet, expecting every single idea, piece of news, or creative work to be wholly unique is not only absurd, it’s also dangerous. At what point do copyright claims start infringing on the very freedoms they’re supposed to protect—our freedoms of speech, expression, and the press? This is where the 1/8 billionth rule comes into play, and why it’s critical that we adopt it as a new standard for copyright in the AI age.

The Problem with Current Copyright Laws in the Digital Age

Copyright laws, as they currently stand, were built for a world where human creativity was slower, more deliberate, and far less collaborative. Traditionally, someone creates something—a painting, a book, a song—and they claim ownership over it. This idea of individual ownership over every nuance of a creative work is no longer viable, especially with AI and the internet creating an ecosystem where millions of people are remixing, resharing, and reinterpreting content all the time.

AI-generated content adds a new layer of complexity to this. Unlike human creators, AI doesn’t intend to plagiarize or copy. It generates data stochastically, meaning it pulls from vast datasets, scrambles that information, and creates something new from statistical patterns. It’s like a sophisticated blender for ideas and information. AI isn’t "stealing" content—it’s synthesizing it. And the reality is, true plagiarism (an exact, word-for-word replication) is incredibly rare in AI output.

But here’s where things get murky: when AI generates something that sounds like something else—say a news story, a blog post, or even a piece of art—people often cry foul. They argue that the AI is copying or infringing on their copyright. But if we dig into the data, how similar is this content, really? If an AI’s output is even slightly nuanced—if it deviates by just 1/8 billionth from the original—should we still call it plagiarism? And more importantly, should we allow copyright holders to silence others on the basis of this minuscule similarity?

Why 1/8 Billionth Should Be the New Standard

In a world of 8 billion people, expecting every person’s thoughts, expressions, or content to be entirely unique is not only impossible, but it also puts creative expression at risk. Consider this: if two people write a similar story about the same news event, is one really plagiarizing the other? After all, there are only so many ways to describe a hurricane or an election result. The details might differ slightly—the angle, the tone, the words used—but at the core, they’re both reporting on the same reality.

Now, apply this same logic to AI. If AI produces content that differs from an original source by even 1/8 billionth, then how can we claim that it’s plagiarizing? This 1/8 billionth difference might seem incredibly nuanced, but it’s an important threshold. It allows for the freedom to remix, reframe, and reinterpret information in a world where human experiences and expressions naturally overlap. Without this standard, we risk stifling innovation, creativity, and the free exchange of ideas.

The key here is objectivity. If we don’t use measurable, data-driven standards like 1/8 billionth, then we’re left in a world where a handful of people get to decide what is “too similar” to be allowed. And that, my friends, is where things get dangerously subjective. Bias creeps in. Power dynamics shift. If we allow a few corporations, lawyers, or gatekeepers to define the boundaries of originality, we risk creating a system where the first person to report on or create something gets to call the shots for everyone else.

This stifles freedom of expression, hampers creativity, and undermines the democratic principles of the free press. Worse yet, it could lead to a world where even the idea of remixing, reinterpreting, or building on existing works is seen as an infringement.

A New Frontier: AI, Creativity, and Copyright in the 21st Century

If we don’t adapt our copyright laws to account for AI and the massive scale of global human expression, we’re going to see more cases where creators—whether human or AI—are silenced under the pretext of copyright infringement. The truth is, ideas aren’t created in a vacuum. Every piece of information we encounter is built on something that came before it. This is true for all of human history, and it’s especially true in the age of AI.

By adopting the 1/8 billionth rule, we’re embracing a future where creativity is fluid, collaborative, and constantly evolving. This rule recognizes that no single person or organization can claim complete ownership over an idea or a piece of information. It ensures that small variations—whether they come from AI or human creators—are protected from baseless accusations of plagiarism. It safeguards freedom of speech, allowing journalists, bloggers, artists, and even machines to express themselves without fear of retribution from copyright holders who claim ownership over common knowledge or widely shared ideas.

We must also consider the positive ripple effects this new standard could have on innovation. Imagine a world where creators can freely build on existing ideas without fear of litigation. AI could become a powerful tool for artistic expression, synthesizing vast amounts of information to help humans see the world in new and exciting ways. Writers could take inspiration from previous works, adding their unique twist without being accused of theft. Journalists could cover the same events without worrying that they’ll be sued for simply reporting the facts in a similar way.

The Future of Creativity Depends on New Copyright Laws

The debate over AI, creativity, and copyright is just beginning, but one thing is clear: if we don’t rethink how we define plagiarism and ownership, we’re in danger of stifling the very freedoms copyright law was designed to protect. In a world of 8 billion people, where information and ideas are shared, remixed, and reinterpreted at lightning speed, we need a new standard.

The 1/8 billionth rule offers a way forward. It ensures that small, nuanced differences are enough to protect creators from accusations of plagiarism while safeguarding our collective right to free expression. In the age of AI, it’s more important than ever to remember that creativity isn’t about ownership—it’s about contribution. It’s about building on the past to create something new. And if we want to foster that kind of innovation, we need copyright laws that reflect the realities of our interconnected, AI-driven world.

Let’s embrace a future where creativity flows freely, where AI is a tool for discovery rather than a threat to ownership, and where the 1/8 billionth rule sets the standard for a new era of copyright and expression.