> There are lots of famous artists that are older than copyright.

There are lots of famous artists that made art before color image capture and reproduction (1930s-60s) and digital image capture and reproduction (90s-00s).

Copyrightless artist fame and economic viability is enabled by a lack of widely-accessible, cheap reproductive methods.

> You mean like right now? Here is A24 claiming copyright for Backrooms related media...

Since resolved: https://kotaku.com/backrooms-director-kane-parsons-a24-copyr...

Turns out when you outsource copyright policing to minimum wage folks, ambiguity goes out the window.

> Society actively misses out a lot. We could have had tons of derivative art that has been buried for the sake of propping up companies. We could have had Aaron Swartz. Abolish copyright.

The problem with absolutist arguments is that they ignore inconvenient facts.

At a time when creative and art economics is under siege, how would copyrightless art make enough money for the creators?

The fact of the acquisition of large swaths of copyright rights by large corporations does not negate the fact that artists need food (and ideally, a place to live and a way to provide for their family).

There are positions that might enable that (Hey, what if we banned the assignment of copyright to corporations? Human only? Original creator only?), but none of them are stripping all rights from intellectual property.