> it implies that humans remembering or using copyrighted things like normal humans do is wrong
I don't agree that this is the resulting implication. I'd argue this is only implied if you believe that the software is so similar to humans that making judgements about the software is equivalent to making judgements about humans.
Put another way, when a human does those things it is not infringement, because we have already determined that it's not, and the laws are based on humans interacting with the content. A computer doing those things is arguably a new thing entirely, and requires new rules. This does not imply that the old rules would or should stop applying to humans the way they do now.
I don't agree that this is the resulting implication. I'd argue this is only implied if you believe that the software is so similar to humans that making judgements about the software is equivalent to making judgements about humans.
Put another way, when a human does those things it is not infringement, because we have already determined that it's not, and the laws are based on humans interacting with the content. A computer doing those things is arguably a new thing entirely, and requires new rules. This does not imply that the old rules would or should stop applying to humans the way they do now.