> the position of advocating against all copyright protections at all only makes sense for people who are already wealthy enough that they don't need proceeds from their art to survive.
This makes it sound like the majority of people produce more content than they consume.
The reality is that 99.99999% of people do not produce "art", let alone with the intention of living of it.
Whatever harms you might envision for the tiny minority who do want to try living off copyright, those concerns are dwarfed by the benefits for the rest of us.
Further, not many people who are serious about reform are literally "advocating against all copyright" A reform that simply curbed the duration to something less insane than 150 years would resolve much of what makes copyright bad, even if it continued to exist.
This makes it sound like the majority of people produce more content than they consume.
The reality is that 99.99999% of people do not produce "art", let alone with the intention of living of it.
Whatever harms you might envision for the tiny minority who do want to try living off copyright, those concerns are dwarfed by the benefits for the rest of us.
Further, not many people who are serious about reform are literally "advocating against all copyright" A reform that simply curbed the duration to something less insane than 150 years would resolve much of what makes copyright bad, even if it continued to exist.