By OP's framing, it seems so.

But I think there's more nuance here. I can buy a copyrighted book, read it, and then sell it or give it to you for free. The copyright holder's rights have not been violated: I've not copied it, the clue is in the name copyright.

It's not legal for me to go into a library, borrow a book, and then make a copy of it. It's a larger breach to then share that copy more broadly by making more copies.

In the digital era copying is cheaper, and distribution is broader. This caused panic within publishers of all media - they wanted to provide the convenience of digital distribution and consumption (and realise the cost savings), but noted that without DRM, copying would mean there was a risk they'd only ever sell one copy of a game, film, album or book.

This is a snap back to the extreme interpretation of enforcing copyrights. Publishers could structure their DRM and licensing to mimic physical media better. For example, the license could be irrevocable and provide a right to the user of a copy in perpetuity, so it can't be withdrawn. The license could be transferred to other owners: I could lend you my copy, you could then return it to me, digitally; I could donate it to a charity; I could sell my license to another individual; it could be part of my estate and bequeathed at my death.

Physical media has flaws, so does digital media. With a little vision and not much technology we could make digital media as awesome as physical media while retaining copyright to drive investment.

Or, we could go the way OP seems to be nudging towards: we try and grow the copyleft media industry to something economically viable and put the entire economic model of controlled distribution into a place of no longer being viable as a business. Big ask.