[shlurpy]

You gloss over the economic issues, but those are fundamentally at the center of it. Some copy-able work can be done by semi-amateurs in their free time, and some can be paid for as a 1-off contract without needing exclusivity, but most seems to require trained labor with a guaranteed return on investment.

What it comes down to is that under capitalism, a lot of art like movies, tv, video games, certain more polished professional tools, etc, requires an artifical concept of ownership to ensure that people are able to spend time creating them, because choosing to do too much uncompensatable labor is effectively choosing to starve to death.

But maybe, like me, you see the possibility of a future where we can find a way to compensate art that isn't locked into the grim realities of capitalism. Well, cool, but then political strategy has to be considered. As is, ML seems to be a technology that funnels money away from compensating creators and towards large corporations that can invest in ML and their shareholders. And in our practical reality, more money buys more speech, more speech tends to lead to more power. Thus, self interest rules the day, with the wealthiest uninterested in changing the fundamental economics systems and working to stop it.

That's why I am concerned about ML and copyright. It would be no problem in an ideal world, but in our world, it makes the status quo worse in a way that prevents progress towards that ideal.