That's not the argument though. The argument is that rent seeking as a business strategy is a deeply flawed and counter productive economic practice that ultimately limits our species' technological advancements and societal progress. The sooner we move past it, the better off we will all be. I agree that you should be able to create whatever you want and keep it 100%. So, clearly if someone were to steal your creation from your home and publish it online that would be theft. However, if you decided to take advantage of your creation by creating an infinite number of copies at no cost to you at all (which is what publishing through digital media means) that's your decision as a creator to make, nobody forced that on you.
I don't like your redefinition of "rent seeking" at all. If I create an original piece of art, and publish it digitally, preventing other people from freely copying that art is not rent seeking - the thing I created didn't exist in any form before I created it, and I'm not trying to "extract rent" from you by preventing you from creating any of your own works.
Now, like I said previously, there are currently issues with copyright, and this can cross into rent seeking if I try to extract money from your own original works of art (see the family of Marvin Gaye), and there are issues with the length of copyright (i.e. I believe there is a fundamental difference in protecting the right of a creator while they're alive, vs. the rights of inheritors in perpetuity). But the whole concept of rent seeking is around using the power of government to extract money from others simply because you were there first, not around allowing unlimited copying of truly original works.
Before we invented copying machines there was no concept of copyright. It is a recent invention, and not how human culture evolved. And it was ok up until the internet was invented, but people want to return from passive consumption to interactive. We now prefer games, social networks and search to books, radio and TV. AI is just the latest stage in this move away from passivity.
Why should society not have the right for its traditional interactive way of exchanging culture? Extending the duration of copyright was a perverse move, and now blocking the right to repair is another perverse move. DMCA put all publishers at the whim of agencies spamming takedowns with impunity even for no reason at all. Artists more recently would like to copyright abstractions to block generative AI from reusing their ideas.
People need their traditional ways back. We started open source, made Wikipedia, we now have open scientific publication, teachers share prep materials. Clearly there is a sign that copyright is not essential for society. Copyleft or sharing is more important.
See, even the name is misleading because it's not a right - it's really a prohibition. We can agree or disagree about definitions, but I think it is self-evident that defending and enforcing a prohibition on creating zero-cost copies of digital media requires bending over backwards to undo the very properties of the technology that make it desirable to those who want to profit off of it. To me that sure sounds like rent seeking.
