FWIW, my perspective and descriptions of the detractors is aimed primarily at the detractors I see - which are notably not the artists or other people whose livelihood depends on copyright protection. Instead, the loudest voices are of the bystanders who imagined possible windfall if only OpenAI et al. had to pay them for using their Reddit comments and a few blog articles written half a decade ago. These are the "I won't write comments on public forums anymore, nor will I blog, because LLMs" voices.

I fundamentally believe that people are not entitled to 100% of the value created by their labor - in fact, society can only function if there's surplus that others can build upon, and when companies try to capture 100% of their output, we call this out as extreme greed and a symptom of "late stage capitalism".

I do agree that people who are directly affected by LLMs basically replacing their job have a valid argument, though I don't think the core of it relates to copyright anyway.

As for the laws:

> it’s the fact these companies are being allowed to flaunt the law with zero repercussions i have a problem with (specifically on this one of the problems).

It's not been determined they actually broke the law on this. AFAIK it's still an open question, pending (in the US) court verdicts or (elsewhere in the world) updates to IP regulation. Morally, I personally think use of data for training AI is not violating copyright entirely, and is closer to a person consuming content and learning from it - but more importantly, I think preventing this use to be denying humanity great value for no good reason. Almost all content in the training set, on the margin, is both contributing an infinitesimal bit to the resulting model, and at the same time, it's providing much more value this way than it ever had before.