Or, are you just someone who does not expect to ever create anything of value?
The gp was speaking about the purpose behind creating copyright, which is to produce the maximum number of works, while you were looking at the results to the author, the goals of recognition and payment.
Only specific representations are protected: non-derivative readaptations are generally permitted (the thorny issue is whether it is derivative or not: c.f. Disney vs Pixar). Additionally, the US specifically avoids guaranteeing profits for works by endorsing “sweat-of-the-brow” or effort-based value judgements. Doing otherwise is an implicit validation of communism: to each according to their effort, which is counter to the distribution policy under capitalism.
Indeed, it does not guarantee profit or earning a living (indeed, there are many works with great labor that earn a loss). But it does give OP a grounds to pursue remedies to recover and prevent further infringement were I to copy his/her stuff, and out-sell it under my label.
The mention of "years of work" was not to imply that profit is somehow to be communist-style equating of profit-to-effort. It was to contrast a massive effort often required to create a serious work of literature, art, or software, vs. the trivial effort required to pump out new copies and slap your name on it.
Any sense of ethics would find it unfair for Alan to put in years of work to create a truly unique and valuable work, and Bob to claim it as his and make all the profits. And that is the moral case for copyright.
I also notice that OP said he's against Capitalism, but did not say he was OK with Bob taking Alan's work and profits as his own.
That said, the implementation, constraints (fair use), and terms are vastly arguable.
To answer your question: No, I am not OK with capitalism, which is why I don't need such philosophically vacant concepts like copyright to justify exploiting the hard work of others.
Regardless, I'm right.
Yup, which is where they go when the copyright expires. And, I am definitely on board with shorter expiration terms, and entirely against these endless extensions won by lobbying of corps like Disney.
While you've said you are "not OK with capitalism", you haven't said that you are OK with my proposal. Why?
And yes, I am familiar with the original phrasing "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". That does not mean that there is no possible moral ground behind the law. It only means that the authors of the law found it sufficient to mention the utilitarian grounds, and indeed that founding group tended to look first for utilitarian basis for the rights they wrote down.
Then why doesn't Einstein get a patent on Theory of relativity? Why is it okay for scientists to work for decades and have no IP rights over it?
Why does is our system designed so that only corporations can afford the cost of a patent, and most people in the developing world could never afford them?
And after paying all that money we get patents on blatantly fake inventions, like the Antigravity Machine?
Copyright exists to protect a creator's right to the proceeds of their creative output. Copyright is pretty broad. If I tell a different story with your characters I'm still violating copyright.
Patents exist to protect an inventor's right to the proceeds of their invention. If you invent a true hoverboard and I buy one, reverse engineer it, and sell copies I'm in trouble. But if I am merely inspired by your creation to go invent my own hover tech that works differently I can sell that just fine.
Descriptions of the real world as it already exits do not get copyright or patent regardless of the work put in. No matter how good a job you do creating a map of New York you can't prevent someone else from making a map of New York.
The counterpoint I made is that we do not reward some types of intellectual labour at all. And some of the greatest contributions to humanity are of the type, that is not rewarded. So the argument as initially presented is flawed:
Either the authors of intellectual labour do not need to be rewarded with ownership, perhaps other types of compensation is more appropriate
OR
Authors of scientific intellectual labour are currently unfairly exploited and should be compensated
Yup, that is very true.
And it's why a number of universities are creating patent offices to help their scientists commercialize their works (with the university getting a share; I'm not up to date on how fair the sharing is)