[Bobblehead]

In my mind it all comes down to the purpose of copyright.

Copyright was NEVER intended to reimburse creators for their work. It was recognized early on that music, plays, books, and so on were public goods and the public was better off if these ideas, concepts and intellectual property could be used to derive future work. But it was realized that if people didn't have any control over their creations that it would diminish the amount of work created. If people couldn't afford to devote time and energy to their work, then those works would need to take a back seat to the rest of life. So, as a compromise, it was suggested that the creator be given a limited monopoly over the work they created just long enough that it would be worth their while to create the work.

The arguments were then how long to set the limits so that it encourages new work.

But now the argument has morphed into "It is something X created and X should have control over it as long as X lives". The desires of the creators (which is often now multinational conglomerates with large lobbying budgets) is now being pushed much further than the public's rights.

Technology has really blurred the lines, has made infringement much easier than it was 30 years ago and has strained business models that made many people wealthy for the last 60 years. These business models need to adapt, laws need to adapt, but the original purpose of copyrights should not be forgotten.