So everyone who defends copyright always uses the example of the small artist stopping a giant company from just using their work and calling it their own, beca

So everyone who defends copyright always uses the example of the small artist stopping a giant company from just using their work and calling it their own, because thats the only real substantial of damage in an IP liberated world that does not happen now (copyright is not effective in granting the rights holder a guaranteed distribution monopoly anymore). Are IP holders getting revenue from large businesses paying them to use their IP, or are said businesses just having their legal teams verify that their clone is just right on the cusp of infringing so they can still reuse others work without credit but instead through exploit loopholes in the system they built? Because we know very well that the largest utilization of copyright law today is to suppress the development of competitive products to existing media brands and content providers, especially online where the DMCA is an absolute policy of presumed guilt. I want to know where these perceived benefits even are, because they keep the discourse about how to fix copyright unproductive when half the people are defending it for... some reason?