Yes, I was talking about the copyright for the performance, not the underlying melody. If, for example, you hear a public domain folk song, you can sing it later, but you tape player can't, even if it "remembers" it just like you do, because the rendition is owned by its performer. The example had the purpose to clarify the distinction between the rights of the human listener and their tools, but I see based on the response it confused some people.

To give another example, even if I can walk or run in a park, my bot army with a million mechanical feet that all behave by analogy to the human foot can't also run through the park. Why should it be any different in the case of my AI derivation machine with superhuman memory and derivation ability?

So even if the courts find that AI training is fair use, and not derivation, that conclusion will not be based on the analogy with the way humans and machines learn. Nor will it preclude the writing of laws, by humans, explicitly redefining copyright to protect human creators from unlicensed AI training. The social contract is anthropocentric all the way down.