Given the extent to which the copyright system has benefited corporations and publishing companies to the detriment of individual authors and the general public, I'm constantly surprised that it still has many apologists.
As we don't live in a world where the rich patronize the arts some sort of copyright system is the only way authors and artists are gonna make a living doing their thing. ...though I suppose proponents of Universal Basic Income (UBI) would disagree, but between the abolishment of copyright, the institution of UBI, or a 7 year old child being hit by 7 lightning strikes and 7 meteor impacts and surviving; the latter seems the most likely.
People imagine poor author having their thing stolen rather than poor author that corporate takes IP from by contract agreement (and if you don't do that, you don't get the job), then abuses for 70+ years
I assume the general opinion is that copyright is at most partially unethical. That’s what the AI discussion is about too, i.e. artist copyright.