It’s probably possible to have copyright laws that aren’t a net negative, but they’d be very different (perhaps they’d be very short and only restrict commercial use/exploitation), and we don’t.
I’m pretty confident the optimum is at or near or zero copyright restrictions and finding other ways to fund the creators. Which, yes, means accepting that free markets are not the best tool for every job.
Copyright is the antithesis to free markets. It's based on state given monopolies for individual product. There are many examples for free markets being bad solutions, but this is not one of them. To the contrary, more free market for once would be good here - and also why one can only hope that big tech wins the fight described in the article, to maybe arrive at that change.
Why? What is wrong with the idea that I can put work into something and be (somewhat) sure, that not someone else makes a lot of money with it before I can?
You're not arguing for existing laws here, you're arguing for the concept of copyright which I'm not opposing.
Current laws aren't about protecting the authors, it's about allowing a bunch of (non creative) people to manage portfolio of IP and get loads of money from it while ripping off the artists. That's why current copyright laws are bad.
