I don't know if you really have a consistent argument here. If the infringed content is so trivial, if it provides zero cultural value at all, why is there a so

I don't know if you really have a consistent argument here. If the infringed content is so trivial, if it provides zero cultural value at all, why is there a social benefit to legally protecting it? If there is a cultural value, at what point does preventing a group of people from benefiting from the culture become antisocial? Do you think that the current limits are exactly right (and thus, you would oppose an extension to copyright term)?