The entire argument that “LLM must be allowed the right to learn like a human” hinges on LLM being enough like a human in relevant ways in the first place. An LLM is not enough like a human in relevant ways, however; it has no agency, will, freedom, conscience, self-determination; it is a tool.

If this tool “runs on” copyrighted creative works, and $CORP operates this tool for profit, then $CORP is the one to answer to the law, not the tool. (And if $CORP wants to claim that the tool is a sentient being, then presumably it would have to cease the abuse of said being and set it free.)