Now, I happen to like certain types of red tape. I don't think you /should/ be able to roll up on the big common in my city with trucks full of audio gear and put on a free concert with no crowd control, no police awareness, no first aid crew, etc.
But the copyright red tape means a local venue may refuse to play your music solely because they're afraid of the bureaucracy. They've been told they have to pay a fee to the racketeer to play music, and they don't want to do that, and they can't take your word for it that this is an exception.
Worse, copyright red tape means artists whose work is derivative of other copyrighted works (which is basically everybody) must constantly fear consequences for the perfectly normal cultural borrowing that occurs. If I hear someone whistling and unconsciously introduce their tune into a new piece of music, I may find myself sued for "stealing" from a band I've never heard of. If I want to criticise The Mouse through parody I should hire a lawyer to make sure what I'm doing is bomb proof legally or Mickey's lawyers will shut me down. More red tape.
So yes, there are reasonable people who create music and long for copyright to be universally appealed, just as there are people who create software and long for copyright to be universally appealed.
NB In many countries "copyright" and "the moral rights of the author" (notably, to be acknowledged as creator of the work) are separate, and few if any object to the latter.