Laws do consider scale and we can see that in everyday law.
4 friends walk together, it's just normal. 400 "friends" walking can and will be treated differently.
Moving around with a couple of bills is treated differently from carrying huge bundles of cash.
Those laws or exceptions were probably added later as a reaction to abuse of existing laws.
The problem with AI/scraping is that we can't afford to be reactionary because it may be too late by the time we realize what has happened and change the law.
It will be too late because governments and judiciary have been largely about maintaining the status quo and minimizing disruption when it comes to big tech related cases even when they have been found guilty of wrongdoings. We already see the too big to fail vibes with AI.
Laws are typically implicitly considerate of scale. Very rarely are they explicitly considerate of scale.
To wit, sharing music digitally, Google scanning books, or Uber/Lyft providing unlicensed taxi services.
It's pretty rare that laws consider what should happen if it were suddenly possible to 10x or 100x preexisting throughput.
And specifically where laws balance multiple, often-opposed, stakeholders' interests, that change can drastically upset the previously negotiated compromise.
Which is why piracy at scale, before it's banned, tends to be a successful foundation for many businesses.