I feel like there's a lot to dislike here. "copyright law is notoriously complicated", yeah, because there's a combination of lawyerly careful parsing as if "common sense" everyday language has precise, consistent definitions.
We're told in many ways that music, especially popular music, and movies, especially popular movies, and prose to a lesser extent, are the obvious, explicit property of corporate entities. Any copying or imitation is immoral theft.
Now, corporate entities are doing the copying and imitation, and we're told it's not copying or imitation at all!
If you have it both ways, people correctly suspect that the legalities are such that the few extract money from, and control the many, an unsustainable situation.
