People have a strange tendency to enjoy being rewarded for work they've done.
I suspect that the folks who invest hundreds of millions of dollars into production costs for a movie, rather enjoy the ability to recoup those costs by restricting access to only those who are willing to pay for the privilege.
but what about people getting paid for the invested money of movies made by their ancestors, dead over 50 years ago (and up to more than 100 years ago, whatever is the current copyright term for movies)
do they have a right to enjoy being rewarded for work they didn't do but their ancestors did?
if the intention of those laws was to encourage creativity, how come they're stiffing it more than encouraging without any signs of any government trying to correct the laws to better match their purported intentions?
You don't mind if I borrow your car do you?
And your house?
Let's not quibble about the particulars of me ever giving them back.
As I understand so far the main reason to seek a revision of the concept of ownership is exactly due to the existence (enabled by internet technology) of digital assets.
copy-pasting is HOW computers work. copy-pasting does not do well in society ruled by the exclusivity-mindset inherent to marketplaces (and their societies) of tangible assets