That process of transformation, the expertise required to enable it, and the cost of then making it available to users is what is being charged for, no?
A business doesn't have any innate right to exist.
> The issue comes when taking information you haven't paid for, and then locking it into a machine you charge for.
This is two distinct complaints:
1) Using information they've not paid for
2) Charging for the outputs
You also wrote:
> It would be an entirely different story if OpenAI was indeed open and the resulting model was available for all.
This implies that you don't have a problem with #1 (using information without paying) but you do have a problem with #2 (charging for the outputs).
So my point wasn't that #1 is okay (as much as I dislike copyright law as it stands, corporations should follow the law, just as individuals are forced to) but rather than I find #2 to be okay, in isolation.
No. It's specifically a complaint about the combination.
I have a problem with using information without paying IF you intend to charge for the value you get from that information. This is in line with many open source licenses.
I don't have a problem with either in isolation.