That's not really true, at all. After all, we have the technological capability to easily copy and send around the world infinite copies of digital media. But

That's not really true, at all. After all, we have the technological capability to easily copy and send around the world infinite copies of digital media. But copyright still exists, and while one could argue that modern tech has been a big blow to the movie making business, lots of movies are still made and they make money, despite the technological capability that makes marginal copies cost $0. To clarify, I'm not stating an opinion about whether copyright is "good" or "bad" or overbroad in some way (pllllleeeeaaassseee don't make this a debate about pros/cons of copyright). But I am making the argument that copyright was essentially invented to protect against technological changes making creators obsolete, and the body of copyright law largely worked in that regard.