Other people use licenses that try to create a commons where if you want to use it you need to share your own code, as a counterpoint to the non-commons in which you can't use code at all. And if people use those licenses, they should be respected as well.
By all means, eliminate copyright, and let all code be copied freely. And until that happens, as long as proprietary code exists and doesn't let anyone copy it, respect copyleft licenses as well.
The value transfer is basically theft.
It isn't about the usefulness of the service, or even that something similar is a good thing ... it is about the execution and what it says about fairness for those that worked to create the data it depends on to produce value.
Your musical example is playing out in the courts in multiple forms. The Marvin Gaye case, Led Zeppelin, Katie Perry etc.
And each case pushes me further towards wanting to rip down the whole rotten edifice.
We've lived through 4 or 5 decades of unprecedented expansion of the domain to which IP lays claim. Surely it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way?
AI isn't being inspired or creative, it is mass scale and mechanised bootlegging.
To compare it to human inspiration is naive or wishful thinking.
I want every line of code I've ever written to be used as much as possible.
I find "intellectual property" to be dubious to the core. I'm not confident enough in my feelings to be a zealot, but if I had to pick sides then I know which side I would pick.