(upvoted for effort, thank you sir/madam)
"There are competing interests between creators and consumers."
This part I don't quite get--what do consider the rights in conflict? Obviously there is the difference in what creators want to be paid and what consumers want to save, but is there something beyond this you intend...?
"When people argue about middle men screwing over artists and consumers we should be finding a way to either get rid of middle men or curb their power without totally obliterating copyright."
The problem I see is that copyright is primarily used these days to benefit the middlemen, right? Indeed, copyright (by its very nature) is aimed solely at benefiting whoever is in charge of distribution--it's about the right to copy.
As such, as technology attacks and removes middlemen, so too does it render obsolete the notion of copyright. If you empower consumers to handle their own distribution, the motivations for having copyright at all wither away and the legal machinery becomes vestigial.
"A lot of the rhetoric surrounding this seems to be focused on copyright but what I see is an anti-business position."
I am not qualified to speak on behalf of anyone claiming similar views. For my own part, though, it isn't about being anti-business--as Chesterson said: the problem isn't that there are too many capitalists; it's that there are too few.
I believe that copyright creates a barrier to entry in information economies that is vastly outweighed by the progress that comes from being able to openly improve and distribute works. Moreover, I believe that it allows business models that would not be practical in a free market.
I don't think we need to do away with business--I just believe that if you create IP you need to accept (as a given!) that you won't be able to control its dissemination, and model your business accordingly.
If you can provide support for it in the wild, better then the other guy, it's a viable business (see Red Hat, Ardor Labs, etc.)
If you can provide faster access and better UX for it, it's a viable business (see Steam, Netflix, etc.)
If you can't do any of that, but can offer a sense of engagement with the community while polishing the software and get paid by donations/preorders, it's a viable business (see Minecraft, Overgrowth, etc.)
Otherwise, you are literally building an entire business on scarcity the government provides and enforces. This doesn't strike me as sound.
While I disagree with you right now and I think your position is a little extreme I have to say that the work of people like you will get us to a point where that switch may become a real possibility.
I apologize that I'm so hardline on this, but I feel it the only rational position to take--tenable, perhaps not, but certainly the most rational.
"So I'm interested to learn more but i think this position isn't just one position but part of a package deal that comes with an entire worldview that I don't understand."
Thank you for keeping an open mind. :)
I've been wrestling with this for a few years now in one way or another.
My biggest suggestion is to start thinking about what is truly being sold, what value that truly has, and whether or not this system makes sense. Try to identify what makes that work, and who supports it, and how much excess exists along the way from the creator to the consumer.