@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe @kensanata@octodon.social average person would usually be in favor of copyright, as it is a natural tendency. "They stole my idea!" is something we all felt, and is hard to not be empathetic towards. That said there shouldn't necessarily be a law protecting that culture, but that's not in the realm of the average person, it is in the realm of the experts (be it in law, or specific industry where the law applies heavily). In the realm I'm in, I observe a divide between those that wish to abolish IP law on principle, and those who want to use it to change the overall culture, eventually deprecating the law. The latter is more often associated with the word copyleft, as the fundamental requirement to "share back" is usually based on IP law, even though going directly against the IP culture. In a way it is ironic, additionally serving as a demonstration of the overextension of the law.

An analogy I was pondering on lately: Your community abides by the laws of a book, that everyone gets to write something in. You being one of these people are against this practice and when it comes time for you to write something you could either:
1. not even show up, or if forced, write an equivalent of a no-op instruction: "Everyone should do whatever they want".
2. show up asap, and write down a verbose protest: "Nobody should abide by any law of this book except this one. No other law in this book can override this one. No further laws are allowed to be written in this book except to reinforce this one, yada yada yada, I hate this book".
The latter is clearly a stronger protest, but as it is also clearly uses the books "power", someone who is religiously anti-book would be against that.