There exist a class of people who absolutely do believe that the creator of a work doesn't "own" that work and has no entitlement to the profits of duplicating and distributing that work.

I've applied the "free-est" license that I can to every bit of "intellectual property" I've ever made-- be that the Perl Artistic License for software or a Creative Commons public domain dedication for music, photos, and non-software writing. I don't believe I'm "owed" anything by anyone for the ideas I've chosen to publicly express.

One could argue that the things I've produced are "worthless", since I'm a rank amateur at everything I do, and that the gesture is meaningless on that basis. I don't think that changes the nature of the gesture, personally-- I worked as hard on the works I've created than anyone else, and I don't feel at all entitled to "protections".

One could also argue that it would be different if I "made my living" from creating "intellectual property". I have specifically avoided that in my life because I don't believe that's a morally right way to "make a living". I can't tell you how I'd feel if I couldn't "make a living" exploiting copyright protections because I'd never do it to begin with.

Edit: My attitude does mean that some business models simply wouldn't exist. I'm not saddened by that, and I don't think humanity is any the poorer for it. Artists will still express themselves, whether they're paid for it or not. Patronage models existed before copyright and drove the creation of many great works. There are other ways that works can be created besides a royalty-based model.

IMO, copyright needs to be much shorter. Once you share something with society, which is the mechanism through which your thing becomes successful, you give up control.

If you publish a great novel, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to write a sequel or short story, as long as I'm not passing myself off as you. For that matter, I don't see why people shouldn't be able to rewrite parts of a story. The original doesn't suddenly go away, it's just been forked. Maybe the fork is better and people enjoy it more. Let the best story win.

Anti-copyright people seem to exist in a world where the only people who make things do so at big C&D-happy corporations. They mistake the cost of reproduction with the cost of creating and think the creating will happen with no control over reproduction.

We didn't always have this system. Things still worked.

Removing copyright may let a better system be out in place

There a billion books, songs, blogs, software projects, paintings, photos, and other copyrightable things no one ever made a dime off and most of the creators aren't homeless. It can be made while working another job, raising a family, dealing with life. The only people making money off this stuff are the very few you hear about. And the people that "dedicate all their time" to it will, of course, tell you it's the only way to make stuff as great as theirs (via twitter, from a private island, while doing anything but creating), and enough people believe that is true to keep the money machine churning. Creativity isn't going to dwindle away with no laws "protecting" it.