I don't understand your argument. I concur with the GP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780772) that there

I don't understand your argument. I concur with the GP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780772) that there are legitimate issues around LLMs that need addressing. I say that current legal principles seem inadequate to address these issues. Your "counterpoint" seems to merely reiterate the latter. You seem to agree that these concepts can not be used effectively to address issues around LLMs pointed out, as what the LLM extracts is not copyrightable. Do you simply disagree that there are issues worth addressing? Also, typically the entity that carries ideas can not be owned by a cooperation. So there is a completely new relationship between property and ideas at play.