You don't have to be a sovereign citizen to be opposed to copyright law. Many people are.
It's a legal fiction created to incentivise creation and enjoyment of new ideas. That by preventing people from copying things, you end up with more things for them to enjoy than they would have gained from the copying. It has more in common with a government choosing roundabouts over traffic lights or asphalt over pavers than a government making stealing or murder illegal. Its existence as a law is grounded in pragmatism not what's right, so you can't point to the law as evidence that it's what's right.
However when I say grounded in pragmatism I mean based on theory and guess. That the ability to monetise a monopoly on an idea outweighs the creative costs of copyright existing is not something I've ever seen a copyright fan present. The worsened ability to copy and then improve works. The armies of people involved in upholding and defending the copyright rather than working on new things of their own. The people who can't afford many things under copyright so it doesn't matter if they have access to more variety, who would have been better off with less variety and lower costs.
Instead the copyright fan goes "monopoly means monetisation which means incentive to create more things ergo more things created. Obvious, case closed".
> so you can't point to the law as evidence that it's what's right.
I didn’t - I pointed out that this legal fiction is so widely adopted because of its recognized importance to society.
When youtube allowed creators to monetize content did it lead to more creation? Absolutely yes, so many channels on youtube only exist because creators were able to make a small living off of it. The same is true of copyright, it allows creators to make a living and more is created because of it. Without it only hobbyists would create (like pre-monetized youtube) and the rich.
It's a legal fiction created to incentivise creation and enjoyment of new ideas. That by preventing people from copying things, you end up with more things for them to enjoy than they would have gained from the copying. It has more in common with a government choosing roundabouts over traffic lights or asphalt over pavers than a government making stealing or murder illegal. Its existence as a law is grounded in pragmatism not what's right, so you can't point to the law as evidence that it's what's right.
However when I say grounded in pragmatism I mean based on theory and guess. That the ability to monetise a monopoly on an idea outweighs the creative costs of copyright existing is not something I've ever seen a copyright fan present. The worsened ability to copy and then improve works. The armies of people involved in upholding and defending the copyright rather than working on new things of their own. The people who can't afford many things under copyright so it doesn't matter if they have access to more variety, who would have been better off with less variety and lower costs.
Instead the copyright fan goes "monopoly means monetisation which means incentive to create more things ergo more things created. Obvious, case closed".