My biggest hate isn't it's length (typically life plus 70 years), it's complexity, it's different rules for different situations.
No, my biggest issue is when copyright is used, either deliberately or by accident, to suppress content.
I'm not talking about when an organisation or company uses copyright as an excuse to silence critics. The Electronic Frontier Foundation already does a stellar job of protecting the world from such corporate thuggery. Further, copyright law as it stands specifically protects the right of the public to criticise, parody, review content without fear of reprisal, and, libel law protects the organisations from lies.
I'm talking about when something was for sale, and then no longer was for some reason, and is now unavailable.
For example, CDs are often released for a short period of time, and then "deleted" when they are no longer profitable, or when the artist no longer likes them.
Other examples, back issues of newspapers and magazines that have gone out of business, free street press, TV and radio shows that were broadcast but never officially released.
In most cases, second-hand is the only option, and in the case of broadcast content, there is no option.
The intention of copyright law was to encourage "content owners" to release their creations into the marketplace without fear they would be ripped off. Without a copyright law, many feared that creators would hoard their content for fear of it being stolen.
I don't believe it was created to give creators the right to deliberately make their creations unavailable.
Or am I wrong? Is it generally believed that copyright exists to help creators suppress their content?