Right, it's about incentivising intellectual work. While I have big issues with the copyright system, like all the extensions lobbied for by Disney and friends, it did enable a lot of good work to happen.
How do we know that when we don't have a copy of the world without this regime? How much more and greater works could have been produced without such a repressive system?
A really successful work becomes part of the culture, and remixing, derivatives and other modes of integrating cultural artifacts are prohibited. Why should we allow corporations to own our culture?
The importance of striking a balance between incentivising creation and enriching culture was why the original copyright term was dramatically shorter. The modern term of owners life + 80 years or whatever it is, is clearly ridiculous. 20 years before entering public domain seems pretty reasonable.
There's unfortunately also some pressure against people using legitimate public domain works. E.g. youtubers getting copyright strikes for playing public domain music because it's too similar to a specific copyrighted recording.
The problem is that there is also a lot of stuff that never got done because of copyright. And the extend to which works that were funded by exploiting copyright would not have been funded in any other way is also questionable.
With open source, I should note, its remixing is in fact governed by copyright.
I think we’ve veered a little off the original thesis where we started which is an argument that copyright is limiting the rate or breadth or level of cultural artifacts. I have to say that I find it hard to imagine a meaningfully higher volume or level than we already see today. I mean are you worried that we’re stifling creativity? I think it is abundant and the evidence is all around us.
There might be something to that logic but art and literature doesn't obey rules like math and copyright exists to protect creators
So I’d be curious to hear about a counter example.