Most recording artists don't make their living off of a strong copyright system. The RIAA(/MPAA) cartels - who are the ones behind the strong copyright system - ensure that they get the bulk of the proceeds from recordings, and their distribution, and the protections provided by the copyright system. A lot of this comes from having subsidiaries that allow for music industry equivalents of "Hollywood accounting" to funnel the bulk of profits away from the people who actually make the works. Artists mostly make money from live performances and direct merch sales, which don't depend all that much on copyright.

There are maybe one or two unicorns (like Sheeran) who are so successful that they do make buckets of money - but they too serve the industry's ends. They can be pointed at to convince all the new artists trying to break into the biz that the contracts they're getting aren't really that bad, as they too could become the next Ed Sheeran if they try hard enough.

The system we have is not one designed by the artists in the music industry.

"Live by the blurry bureaucratic tornado, die by the BBT"

That statement is just blatantly illogical. It's like saying, "if you cook using heat, you can expect to burn yourself sometimes."

If you make a living under a strong copyright system, you should expect to be perfectly fine as long as you don't copy someone.

Sure, there can be weird exceptions, and as in any complex system, we should adjust the system over time to account for them, rather than immediately throwing out the whole system. For example, when a plane crashes, we don't rush to abolish the FAA, or to ban aviation.

Yeah, I did think that a few successful court cases amounted to not much more than a bit of wealth redistribution. I'm hardly shedding tears for Mr Sheeran.