Your argument in favor of copyright amounts to "As someone who benefits from foo, I support it," or (rearranged slightly) "I support foo because I benefit from it."
If copyrights are a proper balance, everyone benefits, because more things are created. Without the ability to at least make a living by selling IP, lots of things we currently enjoy/find useful might not exist.
That of course is not to say that the balance is a good one right now, still, it's not just the producers that benefit, it's the public who gets access to things the producer creates because he/she has a means to make some money from it.
I think you're over generalizing I don't listen to music so music IP does not seem to benefit me in any fashion. As to books Shakespeare freely coped from others works which breaks our concept of copyright and he lived without such protection. Yet he has been thought of as the greatest author the western world has ever known for a while.
In my option IP law does little to promote the creation of quality works instead it promotes churning out low quality crap because you must pay before you can view. IMO you could produce a much more effective system by limiting the High Definition version of a movie while not protecting a standard definition copy of a movie. Thus you could watch any movie for free but you would need to pay to see it in HD or in theaters.
You could do the same thing with books and movies. You're free to download a text file but if you want the pictures or fancy formatting you need to buy it. Ditto for low bit rate MP3 vs. lossless copies.
No that's just my context. The extremely abridged version of my argument in that comment is that the alternative to copyright law is some version of contract law and controlled access. You can't force producers to freely release their work, and I doubt you want to stop people entering into contracts with each other.
