sounds like a seditious conspiracy

The ancestor poster isn't saying you can't discuss those other things at all-- but they are offtopic for their interesting sub-question.

Because so many of those responses are just wholly uninteresting - they're just "basic" as the kids say (or used to say? I can't keep up anymore).

"Rich companies abuse copyright" - no shit.

"Copyright is unreasonably long" - no shit.

"It's absurd to think copyright needs to be that long to incentivize creation" - no shit.

Putting a sarcastic or "witty" spin on the above types of arguments still gets the same "no shit" response from me.

I have not read a single response of that form that I find interesting in the slightest, or adds new information, or makes an insightful point, and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment!

So what you say is all of the internet should worry what you think and give you the response you expect, otherwise you won't respond? "no shit" dude.

>And why should we need to confine our replies to a narrow and arbitrary framework of existing case law

Because the user wants responses from that narrow and arbituary framework. You are free to make or respond to another thread to look in another lens.