The extra money IP supposedly allows creators to make does not come from nowhere: it is paid for by everyone else, the consumers. And consumers have just as much interest in having money as creators.
So IP is a tradeoff, and for that to work properly, both parts must be properly represented. Which is the point at issue.
(And this 'artists rights' stuff is nothing but PR spin. They have no intrinsic right to have a special market-restriction set up for them. Do tea-makers have special rights to a monopoly on tea-selling: so tea can only be sold in tea-shops, and no-one is allowed to make tea at home? With a justification that otherwise tea-makers cannot make so much money? How would the public greet a law to do that -- here is the proposition: everyone must pay more for tea, but in return tea-makers earn more money! No-one is going to be interested in that; do you want to pay more just so someone else gets more money? No, of course not. So, mutatis mutandis, the 'public' is only interested in granting monopoly privileges to creators of 'IP' because they get something in return (supposedly, more product) -- and they expect to get a good deal, not one rigged in favour of industry representatives.)