I'm assuming you mean nearly everybody would profit in a non-financial sense, or that more wealth would be created in the aggregate but not so much individually, and if that's what you mean, I generally agree.
IMO, it would be better for the group to curtail copyright somewhat in the US. But here I meant "profit" in the depressingly literal, "a specific individual or group, that can afford an IP attorney, who makes money on whatever they consider to be their IP" sense.
For better or worse, the system in the US currently favors those with the desire and resources to hire great IP attorneys, who are themselves motivated to always argue for stricter IP laws, whose firms have the resources to make huge campaign contributions.
There is no one spending equal amounts of money to push things in the opposite direction, therefore as long as there's money in politics there will always be an invisible hand guiding things in favor of "individuals or groups who stand to profit from something" over all other criteria.
IMO, it would be better for the group to curtail copyright somewhat in the US. But here I meant "profit" in the depressingly literal, "a specific individual or group, that can afford an IP attorney, who makes money on whatever they consider to be their IP" sense.
For better or worse, the system in the US currently favors those with the desire and resources to hire great IP attorneys, who are themselves motivated to always argue for stricter IP laws, whose firms have the resources to make huge campaign contributions.
There is no one spending equal amounts of money to push things in the opposite direction, therefore as long as there's money in politics there will always be an invisible hand guiding things in favor of "individuals or groups who stand to profit from something" over all other criteria.