Finding success defending a derivative work on the basis of fair use, particularly if the derivative work is itself financially successful and derivative of a work "owned" by a rights holder with deep pockets, doesn't seem to be very easy in today's legal climate. It certainly doesn't take "wholesale" copying to attract the attention of a rights holder, either. Heck, with the music industry it doesn't take any copying at all to end up losing a lawsuit.

I'll cite the Tolkien or Marvin Gaye estates as good examples among many. I, too, believe it's a ton more nuanced than how you're characterizing it.

> Generically, this is another common suggestion from people with naive viewpoints and little or no relevant experience and/or exposure.

I said "I would prefer a fairer system to burning it all down...". I even qualified my writing as hyperbolic. It seems disingenuous that you'd choose to belittle and make unfavorable comparisons, given both of those statements.

Characterize my viewpoint how you will, but my viewpoint isn't "burning it all down". I will admit that indulging in a little daydreaming about morally repugnant rights hoarders getting what they deserve is fun, but it isn't realistic or productive for society. A fairer system, enabled by shorter copyright terms and better handling of "orphan" works, would be the right thing and what I wish for. Just like I said.

> I should also mention that literally every working artist I've talked to about the prospect of abolishing IP law is vehemently opposed to it.

Well, yeah-- of course they would be opposed to such a vast, sweeping change. It would be madness if they weren't.

The interesting conversation to have with working artists would be about reducing copyright terms, and how that would both "cost" them in potential lost revenue but at the same time free them from the specter of potential litigation and, at the same time, open up vast tracts of public domain work they could build upon.