Copyright doesn't just benefit huge corporations. For instance, without it, independent artists who rely on copying for distribution (authors, musicians, etc.) would find it much more difficult to make money off their work, mostly (IMO) because large corporate entities with large investments made in publication and distribution systems could simply take content and sell it themselves with zero obligation to the original creator(s). This process could be highly automated at scale, giving creators essentially zero chance to compete in the market.
It's a bad idea.
The thing about copyright law that needs reform is its bias toward the benefit of large corporate entities. Platforms' implementations of DMCA compliance allow "rights holders" to spam perjurious takedown requests en masse, garnishing the earnings of creators and legitimate rights holders in what can only be called (in addition to perjury) outright fraud. Companies like Github scrape the web for content, most of it copyrighted, and use it to construct new products for their own profit. Rare recitation events aside, I think their use case is legitimate fair use in the eyes of the law (and if you look at my comment history you'll see me vehemently arguing to that effect), but should it be? We don't seem to be asking that question, which is really disappointing--we're either complaining loudly and without substance, or blithely accepting the might-makes-right ethic as the central pillar of our IP law.
It's a bad idea.
The thing about copyright law that needs reform is its bias toward the benefit of large corporate entities. Platforms' implementations of DMCA compliance allow "rights holders" to spam perjurious takedown requests en masse, garnishing the earnings of creators and legitimate rights holders in what can only be called (in addition to perjury) outright fraud. Companies like Github scrape the web for content, most of it copyrighted, and use it to construct new products for their own profit. Rare recitation events aside, I think their use case is legitimate fair use in the eyes of the law (and if you look at my comment history you'll see me vehemently arguing to that effect), but should it be? We don't seem to be asking that question, which is really disappointing--we're either complaining loudly and without substance, or blithely accepting the might-makes-right ethic as the central pillar of our IP law.