> corporations dont' exist in nature, its just collectives of individuals. Copyright doesn't exist, its an artificial creation of the state

They are BOTH artificial creations of the state. Neither one exists absent the state's rules.

For copyrights, there is actual justification for existing. If you're a writer and you write a book, you're depending on exclusively being able to sell your book for some time period before anyone else who wants to can make money off your mental labor. This differs from selling a table you made because:
(1) the work to reproduce the table is generally the same work the carpenter did to make it originally, so each individual copy stands as its own work;
(2) the work to reproduce the book is currently little or none, and has little to do with the thing that gives it value (the text of the book);
(3) with the book, if it is in electronic format, it is easily possible to sell or give the item away and still retain a copy for oneself ... which defeats the *exclusive commercial reproduction and distribution* aspect of copyright;
(4) with the table, it is possible to have the design in an electronic format, but someone still has to use that design to form the materials into a table.

The problems with copyright have to do with:
(1) length -- there absolutely should not be a copyright so long that the author's descendants get a stream of residual income fifty to one hundred years after the mental labor occurred ... if it was something like twenty years from creation, it would be reasonable ... but it was just in the last year or two that Steamboat Willy (the original cartoon where Mickey Mouse appeared) and Winnie the Pooh went off-copyright;
(2) work-for-hire -- this displaces the creator and instead puts an organization that employed them as the direct recipient of any returns ... there are certainly cases where this is justified, but organizations overuse it to deprive the actual creators, while harvesting their work for up to a century;
(3) re-use (personal, non-commercial, interpretive, fair use, etc) -- copyrights should ONLY restrict commercial use, not incidental or non-commercial use ... it wasn't for nothing that I mentioned the toddler dancing. See https://nu.federati.net/url/290994#!
(4) resale -- in many situations, the copyright holder wants to get paid when the original purchaser sells or gives the work away ... assuming the original purchaser doesn't retain a copy themselves, that should never be the case.

In the case of corporations, they are given powers that the underlying humans do not have (such as living forever and limited liability), so it matters very much whether we allow them to use copyrighted works without paying. Similarly, it matters very much whether we allow a giant gaming console hardware company (one of THREE worldwide) to purchase one of the top three software companies that produce games for such consoles.

Corporations, by their very nature, coerce people to do things that benefit the corporation, even if it is not beneficial to the individual. Thus, for as long as we allow corporations and corp-alikes (LLC/LLP, LP, Gmbh, etc) to exist, we need governments to constrain their actions and behaviors so they benefit more than just themselves and their management and stockholders. We even had to force them to benefit their stockholders ... managers, who are supposed to act in the best interests of the stockholders, do not do so unless the potential for significant liability exists.

In the Sarah Silverman et al lawsuits mentioned, the only correct ruling would smack the corporations in their heads, while making it clear that any copyright restrictions are limited to commercial uses. Unfortunately, judges and politicians lack any understanding of technology, and thus they tend to make the worst possible decisions.