There might need to be some calibration. The reason for copyright is (ostensibly) to compensate for the enormous cost of production. If the cost goes down, the protection should also logically go down.
It is not to "compensate for the cost of production", nor is it to ensure that business plans of major music publishers happen to be successful.
The EFF is correct to say here that copyright shouldn't be perverted to limiting market competition generally, but limited to protecting a specific works.
In what ways does an exclusive right promote the progress of science and the useful arts other than by incentivizing that creative work?
In what way can that incentive work other than by compensating for the cost of production?
If you believe the anti-AI people you will become misinformed, just as much as if you listen to the most pro-AI people.
Me too. I don't understand what makes you think your opinion is superior to all the evidence I've seen so far.