Hockey, Baseball, and Music
I remember when I was a wee lad, I occasionally read letters to the editor in the local paper saying how unfair it was that a baseball player made more money than a doctor, as the latter clearly did more important work.
But this ignored the fact that a baseball player could entertain thousands of people at once, while a doctor could only heal one person at a time.
And, in any case, in sports, the team owners make a lot of money, and player salaries are small in comparison.
But, on the other hand, the baseball and hockey and football players in the major leagues aren't that much better than those in the minor leagues. The reason their games draw in so much money has to do with the established reputation of the leagues, the large stadiums they play in, and so on. So it could be argued that the team owners deserve their big share of the revenue.
There are a lot of people out there who can sing almost as well as Britney Spears. Once again, though, the visibility provided by having a major label record contract contributes a great deal to the revenue stream generated by her recordings.
If the money generated by books, musical recordings, and movies went mostly to authors, performers, composers, actors, and scriptwriters, then it wouldn't be hard to see that copyright laws empower the individual. Since, instead, large companies, that often have contract terms with people in these categories that limit their ability to negotiate freely, are getting much of the money, this is why copyrights are questioned.
But it's not clear that the situation is genuinely unjust, or a natural free-market result, so it's unclear that there is a "right target" if copyright is the wrong target.