Because it's not a simple binary. The system works well for some purposes and not for others, but we can't easily measure the costs and benefits. I don't like the copyright system at all, but as a creator I derive some benefits from it like being able to protect my own work while I figure out how to sell it. Thus I'm not supportive when some people (not necessarily you) take the position 'it's broken, so let's just abandon it completely' since that would reduce the potential future value of anything I've created and shown to anyone else to zero, which would create a huge economic problem.
It's true that some kinds of creative work can't be adequately copied. People enjoy hearing musicians play and sing at live concerts, because something about the immediacy of the social experience is more enjoyable than just listening to a recording. Likewise, original works of painting and sculpture are almost impossible to truly duplicate.
But this is not the case for some other works of art, like novels or movies. The costs of creation are as high as for any other kind of artistic work product, while the marginal costs of reproduction are very much lower, and if they become too disjunct the business model collapses. Nobody is going to spend millions of dollars making films if it'c clearly impossible to recoup that investment, for example, nor are authors likely to spend years sweating over novels. Libertarians like to say 'your failed business model is not my problem' but ignore the fact that the business model is not failing, because people around the world are in fact quite happy to pay money to read books and watch big-budget movies absent any external compulsion to do so. And if I want to make a better sci-fi movie than the forthcoming Star Wars picture, the principal obstacle is not a legal one but the enormous cost of hiring so many skilled craftspeople and resources to make something of equivalent artistic and technical quality. The only legal barrier is that I can't call it 'Star Wars' or reuse elements from existing Star Wars products outside of the narrow exceptions of the fair use doctrine like parody, critical or educational use etc.
It's true that some kinds of creative work can't be adequately copied. People enjoy hearing musicians play and sing at live concerts, because something about the immediacy of the social experience is more enjoyable than just listening to a recording. Likewise, original works of painting and sculpture are almost impossible to truly duplicate.
But this is not the case for some other works of art, like novels or movies. The costs of creation are as high as for any other kind of artistic work product, while the marginal costs of reproduction are very much lower, and if they become too disjunct the business model collapses. Nobody is going to spend millions of dollars making films if it'c clearly impossible to recoup that investment, for example, nor are authors likely to spend years sweating over novels. Libertarians like to say 'your failed business model is not my problem' but ignore the fact that the business model is not failing, because people around the world are in fact quite happy to pay money to read books and watch big-budget movies absent any external compulsion to do so. And if I want to make a better sci-fi movie than the forthcoming Star Wars picture, the principal obstacle is not a legal one but the enormous cost of hiring so many skilled craftspeople and resources to make something of equivalent artistic and technical quality. The only legal barrier is that I can't call it 'Star Wars' or reuse elements from existing Star Wars products outside of the narrow exceptions of the fair use doctrine like parody, critical or educational use etc.