Equally – a recording can easily sell 2000-10,000 copies worldwide, paying itself off, while 2000 fans is not enough for a band to make a global tour – and it's sad to say but being good will not find you fame (or even gigs).
So you're saying that tours need to be global? You also miss the fact that recordings do not make much money anyways.

Related question – what size audience do you need to be playing to twice a week to keep yourself on the road, bearing in mind that either you need to drive back to work the next day, or you can only tour in your holiday?
About 300 sounds about right. Performances, after all, do not need to be expensive endeavors, and not everyone needs to know the band beforehand, and performances do not need to be lone performances.

And you know, there's something faintly depressing about this constant clarion call for people to work hard – have we all signed up to the Republican party?
If you want to offer artists welfare, then do so, but not through a method (copyright) that does not actually benefit artists at all, and which takes away other people's rights.

I would say that is a major argument in favour of copyright for the small artist, even if they don't monetarily benefit.
If they don't monetarily benefit, then that is not a major argument in favor of copyright for the small artist at all.

Secondly – no one is taking away your right to copy and distribute CDs – you never had any right to distribute the contents of that CD.
It is called property rights. Once one owns a CD, one has the property right to do whatever one wishes with it, and that includes making another copy of it and giving it to somebody else. For example, one one buys a hammer, one has the right to make a replica of the hammer and give the replica to somebody else. This is the right you take away through copyright.

That is what the record label and publisher paid the artist for – usually, but not always, under an exclusive licence, but certainly more than you paid for your CD – in the same way broadcasting rights to a TV show cost a little bit more than the private viewing rights you purchase as a DVD.

Remember, it is these rights that enables the artist to negotiate favourable, or dumb, terms with the company.
You mean the right to curtail other people's rights. As I have stated before, the one who wishes to take rights away from others is the one with the burden of proof and paying a sum of money does not constitute "proof."

Put another way – the nature of the work that would be created under such a regime would be very different from that created under the 'invest in recording / recoup from royalties' model. It is unlikely you would get something like MBV's Loveless (approx. $400,000 of record company money spent recording) or Joanna Newsome's 'Ys' (Van Dyke Parks, an orchestra and Abbey Road don't come cheap).
Incorrect. See: Nine Inch Nails.

Lastly – as you say, there are plenty of bands who release their work for free. In which case, support them, rather than material produced by a system you disagree with.
The ones who release their work for free are already alright, but the MAFIAA, which wishes to impose a police state on the internet and uses FUD extortion and bullying tactics, are not alright.

No reason why they can't still work on their art full-time, since it is still possible to make money even if people are sharing. See: Nine Inch Nails. (Just in case you were somehow not able to read the previous comment.)

this is an opinion you want to believe, rather than one founded on fact
Show how the industry has conscience. They have consistently acted in bullying people with copyright extortion. The fact is that they are a business, and the default is that everything they do is a business practice to make more money, which is not conscience. Thus, you have the burden of proof that they make the effort to track down Black musicians to ensure them royalties, rather than to receive money money money; you have not proved this so far.

someone who believes that not being able to have everything they want for free is affecting their 'rights'
Implicit there is the fallacious assumption that this is what a file-sharer is. File-sharing, if you know anything, is about sharing, not about "having things for free." It is about creating multiple copies so that everyone could have it. If we were able to do the same thing for a car (i. e. make copies of cars), then everybody could have a car, no matter how poor they were.

(Note: throughout this post, I have been using the word "art," but it really does not describe it. The more proper term is "entertainment.")

Equally – a recording can easily sell 2000-10,000 copies worldwide, paying itself off, while 2000 fans is not enough for a band to make a global tour – and it's sad to say but being good will not find you fame (or even gigs).

Related question – what size audience do you need to be playing to twice a week to keep yourself on the road, bearing in mind that either you need to drive back to work the next day, or you can only tour in your holiday?

And you know, there's something faintly depressing about this constant clarion call for people to work hard – have we all signed up to the Republican party?

For a small artist – let's say 2000-5000 sales – that can be pretty significant. Let's imagine our 'album' costs $4000-$10,000 for a couple of weeks in a recording studio. Even if the band actually see no money from the recording, they have also not spent anything recording it. The label takes on most of the risk.

If we push that onto the band, and presuming they can somehow raise $4000, then they're $4000 down before they even start. I would say that is a major argument in favour of copyright for the small artist, even if they don't monetarily benefit.

Secondly – no one is taking away your right to copy and distribute CDs – you never had any right to distribute the contents of that CD.

That is what the record label and publisher paid the artist for – usually, but not always, under an exclusive licence, but certainly more than you paid for your CD – in the same way broadcasting rights to a TV show cost a little bit more than the private viewing rights you purchase as a DVD.

Remember, it is these rights that enables the artist to negotiate favourable, or dumb, terms with the company.

Put another way – the nature of the work that would be created under such a regime would be very different from that created under the 'invest in recording / recoup from royalties' model. It is unlikely you would get something like MBV's Loveless (approx. $400,000 of record company money spent recording) or Joanna Newsome's 'Ys' (Van Dyke Parks, an orchestra and Abbey Road don't come cheap).

Lastly – as you say, there are plenty of bands who release their work for free. In which case, support them, rather than material produced by a system you disagree with.