I have no issue paying for movie tickets or concert tickets, and believe that is the primary way movie and music creators should be supported. A theatre ticket

I have no issue paying for movie tickets or concert tickets, and believe that is the primary way movie and music creators should be supported. A theatre ticket covers the costs of running a theatre, a concert ticket covers the cost of running the concert. And the artists/creators receive a cut of that. But if I copy a film, what's actually happening? The distributor has already spent the money on making blurays and distributing to streaming platforms. If I photocopy a book, the publisher has already spent the time and material to produce the physical copy. The only argument here is that the author deserves a cut of revenue, because another copy of their (already publicly available idea) is in existence. I find this notion absurd. Why is an author entitled to money when an idea they have already disseminated is put onto a new piece of paper? I own the paper and the photocopier. The materials are mine. The author should not have a monopoly on how ideas are spread. Nobody can compel them to share their ideas, but once they are shared, they are out there. I could read a book to somebody and a partial copy exists in their mind. Should authors receive royalties for mental copies too? Why not? They lost nothing physical when I made a paper copy either. Our copyright system is broken, and is based on completely flawed premises.