Yes. Earning money is the only argument anyone's been able to make for why we should respect IP as a society, and even that argument is a bit of a stretch.
I think the original argument for copyright isn't directly based on money and isn't a stretch. The argument is that it encourages people to distribute their own works by reducing the risks of doing so, which is a thing that benefits us all.
I don't think that copyright restrictions really apply to the use of data to train LLMs, and that fact is why I, and a number of others, have removed our works from the public web entirely. There is no other real way to protect ourselves from people using the works in a way we object to.
What non-monetary risks of distribution does copyright hedge against? I can see risks of distribution like potential liability risks, but copyright doesn't seem to protect against this. I can understand how things like the GPL leverage the copyright systems to enact non-monetary restrictions, but in a world without the concept of copyright would something like that even be necessary?
As you say, removing your content from the public sphere is the only way to protect yourself from people using it in ways you object to. This would seem to be the case regardless of the state of copyright protection since people gonna do what people gonna do.
> What non-monetary risks of distribution does copyright hedge against?
Copyright allows the copyright holder to decide what uses their work can be put to. The non-monetary risks are that the work will be used for a purpose the creator strongly objects to.
> This would seem to be the case regardless of the state of copyright protection since people gonna do what people gonna do.
Not true. Copyright provides for the possibility of legal repercussions when "people gonna do what people gonna do". Even for ordinary people.
> Copyright allows the copyright holder to decide what uses their work can be put to.
No. It allows the copyright holder to monopolize the copying and public performance of the work. That’s it.
It’s not a copyright violation for me to take your copyrighted painting and draw on it with crayons or hang it on a wall labeled “World’s Worst Painters.” As long as the copy was sanctioned by you I can put it to any use I want as far as copyright law cares. (One popular use now is having a computer compute facts about its word patterns)
> It allows the copyright holder to monopolize the copying and public performance of the work. That’s it.
Yes, we aren't disagreeing here.
> It’s not a copyright violation for me to take your copyrighted painting and draw on it with crayons or hang it on a wall labeled “World’s Worst Painters.
Exactly correct. I wasn't talking about purely private use. Copyright is about distribution of the results. If you do something with a work and never distribute the results, copyright doesn't enter into it (ignoring the complications of the absurd anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA, anyway).
I'm not sure why this is a relevant point. Is IP only important if it's earning money?