My interpretation of the general society's viewpoint on this is for the most part people are ok with the restrictions we place on intellectual property. Most people don't record movies on their phones in theaters, most people don't photocopy books, most people don't trace over artwork and then pass it off as it own. There are people that do all of those things and they are generally shunned by the communities of people involved in creating those works, and the rest of society for the most part goes along with that position, either by not caring, or supporting the laws.

There are points of strife of course, the very extended copyright windows we're seeing, the concerns over sampling in music, (particularly a few decades ago when the technology to sample became widely available, though mostly resolved at this point).

I'm not super familiar with all disciplines, but I know within art/drawing, there is a ton of discourse and training to communicate to new artists what appropriate study/remix/use of reference is, and what crosses the line. While there are different viewpoints, I have confidence that for the most part these discussion are based on good faith arguments in ways that serve the artists and those that consume art. Not saying any of this is perfect or couldn't be improved, but the institutional knowledge is significant and dismissing and overriding is probably going to be a lot of work.

On the flip side, there are those that 'justify' whatever they are doing as... well, as whatever argument suits whatever they are doing. This commonly happens with piracy ("I don't want to support big-co XX", or "DRM is evil" or "This is just for personal use"). Any of these would hold a lot more water if anyone who had this opinion actually did any work to to solve whatever problem they were having, while respecting the creators interest (maybe by say, strengthening IP laws so DRM was unnecessary), but that almost never seems to be the case, because turns out the argument isn't actually an argument to modify the concepts of intellectual property to enhance society, it's just an excuse to justify stealing.

This is what I'm seeing constantly with regard to the current round of AI data scraping, people spouting "it's ok because of XX" but then not really having any interest in propagating XX, instead just having an interest in using other people work without paying them to advance their AI product.

Your original post didn't seem to express which camp your interests lie, so I responded as if it could be in either camp.