The law matters? In what case?
Here's one that it doesn't matter, in a very visceral way:
Thus the main proposition of the article is a negative one, although with profound consequences. If copyright law does not matter for the “independence and dignity of artistic creators and performers” what is it really for?
And this was mentioned before that:
New historical data from Germany appears to indicate that in a non-copyright environment, stronger competition for authors as suppliers and lower consumer prices did increase the earnings power of creators.
The point I've made a few times:
Although, under copyright law, the first owner of a work is usually the author, in practice most works are owned by a third party specialising in commercial exploitation, such as a publisher or producer. Under the orthodox economic analysis, this distinction does not matter. According to Landes and Posner, any legal or institutional devices that limit the assignability of copyright “reduce the incentive to create by preventing the author or artist from shifting risk to the publisher or dealer”; if “future speculative gains” must be shared, the author will be paid less.
Also when you say "let's talk about copyright" in the very premise of that is threaded discussing the logical (or lack of it) premise underlying the concept of copyrights. I decline your invitation to discuss the matter at hand anywhere else, I'd rather keep it here, with all the uninteresting, who ought to feel free to come and go as they wish, as in any public forum, even the dullingotns that yapper on "amen, copying is stealing in lalaland".