People who value money over educating the public will support copyright, while people who value public education and free access to culture and media do not. It's really that simple. No argument's going to convince one side to hop on to the other. Unfortunately (for this matter), it's not 1850 anymore and the amount of people in power that value public education and culture (in the US at least) is virtually asymptotical to zero, thus the current laws we see demonizing copying.
Ironically, a lot of the people behind those laws, especially big tech companies, benefit greatly from a technically educated and skilled public that would not exist, or at least be much smaller, without piracy. Is it wrong for me to pirate a few thousand dollars worth of software, educate myself, and be able to contribute many million dollars worth of work to society? Copyright supporters certainly think so, but I'd argue that the benefits to the public far outweigh what the copyright owners wrongfully claim as "losses" but is really nothing more than wishful imagination of profits they would not have made anyway.
Of course, arguments for public benefits these days are unfashionable. The zeitgeist is to fight for the copyright holders to the end, despite the fact that most of the copyright holders are not actually the creators, not actually the people who would or would not benefit from copyright law. The fact that, for example, most artists on Spotify make about the same amount whether they're on the service or not is a whole other discussion and reason to end or modify copyright itself, but it certainly kills the argument that there would be no creative works if artists didn't get paid. That's actually the case currently and it's quite ironic to see the handful of extremely rich artists pretend to fight for the guy who made two dollars all last year while his record label and music service raked in millions. Copyright law mostly benefits scumbags who've never created anything worth perusing in their lives.