interestingasfuck

I think the history doesn't support this super well; especially not for the media you mention.

Before the printing press, all creative work was expensive without copyright, and so typical folk could only access what they and their community could make. There were still artists in communities, but they were closer to hobbyists (see the traveling minstrel, playing/reading/singing for relatively cheap. The masses knew Beowulf). You still see some of this today, with say yard art made by a neighbor (either on the side, for cost, or in their retirement). In short, art was not just for the rich, but you could argue good art was. This remains true today regardless of copyright for artwork where materials are expensive/scarce.

In the modern day, most of the art I experience is mass copied. Materials are cheap, eg copying an mp3 is essentially free. If there were no copyright, we would see either the results of amateurs and students (like we do on sound-cloud, for eg), or we would still have patrons (and the resulting products would often be leaked to the masses). Note that the printing press was out for awhile before copyright appeared in many countries. The inability to copyright textbooks in Germany made for an industrial boom. Publishing houses still produced new works essentially the same way that Youtubers deal with copy-cats; a better experience for patrons to fund the cheap stuff (which competes at cost with the copies).

So while I buy that the quality of art might drop without copyright, I don't think it drops enough for me to be very sad. And the added accessibility of academia, education, and cultural icons would be amazing.