That's the Catch-22. Since someone can potentially step forward and legitimately claim copyright, nobody with anything at stake will ever use the work. At least before you would pay Warner and know you wouldn't get sued. Now you have no idea - so the situation is actually worse. Somebody might own it but can't prove it.
Orphan works perfectly demonstrate the failure of current copyright law, and it's a problem that will only grow worse with time.
All the court case showed was that Warner didn't hold the copyright, not that the work wasn't still under copyright. It left the door open that somebody might still have copyright over the lyrics - although nobody knows who.
The price of book has very little to do with the cost of the paper it's printed on (or lack of). It costs just as much to write an ebook as it does a print book. The actual printing and shipping costs are minimal.
But you have about about resale value. That's something publishers don't really care about (although I'm sure they're happy you can't resell your ebooks).
Either you didn't get my point, or you're trying to change my argument.
I never said laws don't have a moral basis, I said the moral basis of laws where others are harmed is completely different than the moral basis where nobody is harmed, so you can't compare laws simply because of their moral basis, which is what you were trying to do.
Also, theft and fraud harm people - not physically but financially. It's an act against another person or their property.
Theft, murder, fraud, and jumping the turnstile are all crime perpetrated against someone else. Those actions harm others - every single time. They share a common morality that it's bad to harm others. Even jaywalking is against the law because of the harm it can cause to others, and it's a shaky law at best (since the majority of the time, no harm is caused).
This isn't the case with drugs, where like alcohol, most of the time no harm is done to anyone - not even the user. The moral case for prohibition has nothing to do with the moral case against murder or theft and they can't be compared on the basis of morality.
For starters, wizards predates copyright, unlike Batman.
Second, a wizard is a generic character type, like a policeman or a bartender (or a superhero) - it's not a specific character. Call your wizard Gandalf and you're dealing with copyright. Call him Randalf and you're fine.
Also, there are far more wizards in movies than there are batmans.