LordBucket and GlyphGryth, So as far as I see now, your argument is against copyright itself and copyright entitlements, not against artists getting compensated somehow per se.
I cant say I really agree with you, but I admit given it took me a few read through's to get to this conclusion I at least think I have learnt something.
I can somewhat agree with you though in the context of publishing. In the sense that the publishers did not actually create the work but are legally entitled to the control of it for some reason. This does seem a bit wonky.
Copyright tends to favor big business over small ones.
Current law tends to, yes. Thats why I think the current laws need to be changed (and heavily nerfed). The basic concept of copyright is to favour the creator (well, idealy). Maby copyright should be untransferrable? Then perhaps publishers would stop becomming legally entitled to something they did not actually create.
I'll also note that some mathematicians I know have said that they'll make their textbooks free for all after they die. This seems sensible. Their patrons (the mathematical community) paid their $20,000, now it's free for everyone.
I think that the length of copyright needs to be shortened, to allow works to be accessable by all after a reasonable period of time (rather than the life+70 years or such sillyness we have now). The original point of the temporary monopoly granted by copyright is to reward the creator, so copyrighting beyond the creators life seems odd.