The copyright questions are unanswerable in my opinion. That is, they cannot be answered by looking for an essential "truth."

Reasoning by analogy in this case is not abstraction. It's just shifting the determination to choice of analogy.

Meanwhile, irl.. The best analogy is recent tech Innovations. The internet, social media...

Online copyright was basically instituted when large tech companies were ready to do it, and it was to their advantage.

Youtube, for example, built itself to massive size and locked in network effect advantages largely by violating copyright.

At some point, the legal ambiguity was a problem for their ad business. They were ready to move into the current revenue share influencer-treadmill model for content. At this point online, copyright enforcement was necessary to reduce the risk of being flanked by a new video platform.

The iPod, which resurrected Apple, ran on copyright infringement, and copyright Greyzones.... Until the point when their interests flipped. They're negotiating position opposite labels , Network effect considerations, Etc.

Intellectual property, broadly, does not start out as an intuitive/emergent natural right. It is created by legislative process, ecplicitely taylored to the needs of an interst group and/or national interest.

Writers, publishers, inventors, IP holding companies...

The legal rhetoric around legal arguments... is rhetoric. It is not the reason why decisions are made. It is how decisions or justified post fact.

No one is going to burden aI companies, at this point. The rights of copyright holders are a trivial matter compared to the potential of AI, the risk to certain labor markets, and such.