> I don't think your framing nor your conclusion is correct. Copyright law wasn't written to make Party A or B wealthy, it was written to protect the incentive to produce things that society values.

That's not really different from what I said. "What society values" is what people spend money on, and that money is used to influence policy.

> Or courts will have to decide we know longer value music, art, literature, etc. made by humans -- seems like a long shot to me.

The courts only interpret the law and it's pretty clear to me the law is going to change.

Or we can recognize that virtue is not equivalent to value.

Just because copyright was made with good intentions does not mean it's actually helping. It's pretty clear that copyright is used almost entirely to hoard wealth.