That’s a perspective I hadn’t considered. Although the whole thing stinks of middlemen extracting all the profit between producers and consumers e.g. ag sector by the laws won’t catch up or even force integration. Thanks!
The bigger question is business model vs value-add. Copyright law draws a very direct line from value-add to compensation - if you created something new (or even derivative), copyright attaches to allow for compensation, if people find it valuable.
Business models are a different animal: they can range from value-add services and products to rent-seeking to monopolies, extracting value from both producers and consumers.
While copyright law makes no mention of business models, I don't know whether that is a historical artifact since copyright is presumably older, or a philosophical exclusion because society owes no business model a right to exist. I would suggest the existence of monopoly-busting government agencies argues that societies do not owe business models a right of existence. Fair compensation for the advancement of arts and sciences is clearly a public good, though.
Tying it back to the AI-in-the-middle question, it's yet another platform in a series of these between producers and consumers, and doesn't override copyright. Regurgitating a copyright (article, art, whatever) should absolutely attract compensation; should summarizing content attract compensation? should it be considered any different from a friend (or executive assistant) describing the content? And if the producers' business model involves extracting value from a transaction on any basis other than adding value to the consumer, does society owe that business model any right to exist?
