IP law isn't hypocritical. It's doing what it was built to do[0]: centralize control of publishing in the hands of capital so that the state can then regulate speech through regulating those publishers.
You see, in England, publishing used to be a state monopoly, but it was extremely unpopular with authors, so Parliament dropped the law that established the monopoly. But they still wanted the control over speech that such a monopoly would provide. Publishers had a long habit of ripping off[1] authors, so this new censorship regime was sold as a way to bind publishers to authors. In other words, cede to the state control[2] over your speech and we'll mint you memberships to the new and upcoming capitalist class.
Copyright is often framed as a bargain, or social contract[3] between the public and authors: we agree to not copy this work for X years and you agree to make works without expectation of prepayment. The real social contract is between authors, publishers, and the state: you deliver our propaganda, and we treat authors' labor as a special kind of capital, which publishers are allowed to trade like stocks.
Like all social contracts, this deal has changed before and it is currently changing now. Publishers still have an interest in cutting authors out of the deal, and generative AI gives them cover to do so in the name of innovation.
[1] Politically correct: "capturing the value stream of"
[2] The American version of this dropped the state censorship regime, but we still occasionally see attempts to wield copyright as a censorship tool. Most recently, someone tried to sell returning to 14-year copyright terms as a way to punish Disney for being too "woke".
[3] A gentleman's agreement, informally bargained for through the actions of many people, that has been codified as law and enforced through the power of the state.
You see, in England, publishing used to be a state monopoly, but it was extremely unpopular with authors, so Parliament dropped the law that established the monopoly. But they still wanted the control over speech that such a monopoly would provide. Publishers had a long habit of ripping off[1] authors, so this new censorship regime was sold as a way to bind publishers to authors. In other words, cede to the state control[2] over your speech and we'll mint you memberships to the new and upcoming capitalist class.
Copyright is often framed as a bargain, or social contract[3] between the public and authors: we agree to not copy this work for X years and you agree to make works without expectation of prepayment. The real social contract is between authors, publishers, and the state: you deliver our propaganda, and we treat authors' labor as a special kind of capital, which publishers are allowed to trade like stocks.
Like all social contracts, this deal has changed before and it is currently changing now. Publishers still have an interest in cutting authors out of the deal, and generative AI gives them cover to do so in the name of innovation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
[1] Politically correct: "capturing the value stream of"
[2] The American version of this dropped the state censorship regime, but we still occasionally see attempts to wield copyright as a censorship tool. Most recently, someone tried to sell returning to 14-year copyright terms as a way to punish Disney for being too "woke".
[3] A gentleman's agreement, informally bargained for through the actions of many people, that has been codified as law and enforced through the power of the state.