I'm more open to burning the whole edifice of copyright law down than you are, but the key reform that I want that maybe we could agree on is that it should be legal to distribute coprighted works for free. No need to to let someone else try to make a profit by undercutting your sales, but if someone is willing to make and distribute copies (or ecopies) of a work to no profit for themselves they should be allowed to. What that would mean in practice if it was legal would be an online content library containing all human art and culture, freely available for download to all comers. It might hurt the income of some creators, but you'd still have a lot of other ways to make money that don't entail depriving people of that library.

Do you like suing people in a court of law to enforce these rights?

What if in a world of billions of people someone makes stories or characters similar to yours. Should you sue them? What if they sue you and have better lawyers and more money. Are you prepared to go to court?

I think you are experiencing a sunken cost fallacy. Unless you have the time and money to enforce copyright then it will never work for you, only against you.

cannot claim my own writing or characters for themselves

If by "claim" you mean falsify authorship, I suspect this would still be illegal even without all the copyright laws.

I like having the ability to tell people ... cannot reproduce them

Well, this is a problem.

Let's not forget that copyright enforcement is mostly funded by taxpayers. It's a collectively massive cost to the rest of us.

It probably made sense for a limited time when we (society) were getting something of comparable value (cultural works) in return. But now that it's effectively endless, and dominated by corporations, it looks an awful lot like systematic extraction of wealth... from us.

Don't the forget the extortionate textbooks gatekeeping who can understand the extortionate journals.

It's just th enclosure continuing in the non-physical space.

The thing that will bring down the copywrite system will be countries without copywrite making enforcement impossible.

Another option is to not allow copying of digital copyrighted works, but do allow resale/gifting and require storefronts to offer something like that. I can do that with physical goods, and that's most of the reason I'd want to copy a copyrighted work (e.g. to send to a friend).

I think trademark law is generally fine as-is, but patent and copyright law are atrocious. My proposal:

• cut copyright to the original 14 year term (or perhaps 10), and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove financial hardship (e.g. small creators who didn't get traction with their product)
• cut patents to 7 years, and allow a one-time renewal of 5 years when going to market (so max 12 years if it takes 7 years to bring a product to market); maybe an exception if the product is stuck with regulators
• don't require lawsuits to keep trademark, only require filing of a potential violation with the trademark office; you can sue, but that shouldn't be necessary to "defend" your trademark

On itself, a simple claim (like "copyright destroys culture") cannot be fallacious. It can be only true or false. For a fallacy, you need a reasoning flaw.

Also note that, even if you find a fallacy behind a conclusion, that is not enough grounds to claim that the conclusion is false. A non-fallacious argument with true premises yields a true conclusion, but a fallacious one may yield true or false conclusions.

The issue that you're noticing with the title is not one of logic, but one of implicature due to the aspect of the verb. "X destroys Y" implies that, every time that X happens, Y gets destroyed; while "X [is] destroying Y" implies that this is only happening now.

No, because OP clearly believes all copyright is bad while your corrected title would be at least some/most copyright has proven to be bad.

Exists culture Exists copyright s.t. copyright 'destroys' culture and not copyright 'drives' culture.

I mean, you're putting an implied universal where the author is only offering existential. That one is on you!

"Copyright always destroys culture" would have the universal quantifier you object to.

Of course, both of these results are formally undecided, mostly because 'drives' is not well defined nor decidable in itself!

As a non English speaker, I can't tell the difference. Might be the same for OP.

Libraries are safe spaces for minorities and the LGBTQ+ community. Books in general spread awareness and raise empathy and can also help struggling young people understand that they are not alone.

That quote isn't saying people of these communities read or use a public library more than those who aren't; it's pointing out that the erasure of public safe spaces and resources affects groups that benefit from their existence more.

All of that doesn't even mention the content that was likely present in those 500,000 books.

rural communities

Online lending allows people in remote or rural places much more economical access to more titles than otherwise, even if they have access to a decent local library

The argument centers around the equality of access, which is especially relevant in the digital age. Rural & disabled population may have problem accessing content with certain restrictions (e.g. need physical access, lack of accessibility features, only available in some region).