Priorities: limiting AI scraping, keeping the power of copyright law limited

This is related to issue #9.

Limiting AI scraping is a good idea, and something that people want to do.

Limiting the scope of copyright law is also a good idea.

But what happens when the two come into conflict? Is it more important to try to make copyright law as weak as possible, even if it means more creative works would be scraped and used for AI training? Or is it more important to keep more works from being added to training sets without permission, even if it means leveling up the power of copyright law more than might be ideal?

> Where copyright exists and is applicable, CC signals are intended to leverage the power of copyright without increasing its power.

>This is not about creating new property rights; it is more like defining manners for machines.

Can the first line be changed to "...leverage the power of copyright without increasing its power more than necessary to reflect the intentions of content creators" and the second line be removed? (Any application of existing copyright law to new technologies is "creating new property rights" in a way, and the "machines" are not the ultimate decision-makers on what works get added to training sets or not.)

Start by reading related issue #9 and the two quoted CC Signals statements in this issue. Resolve the conflict between limiting AI scraping and limiting copyright scope with the project’s intended priorities, then confirm the agreed wording change and removal of the second line as done.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.