Numerous readily available examples suggest that it has, however.
Would you share some of those examples? I've heard this argument made before, and I agree that undermining alternative models is both logically possible and a plausible concern in practice. However, the only examples anyone has come up with so far have been some form of derivative work with questionable added value.
Lacking any more compelling evidence, I tend to come back to balance that copyright is one economic principle that clearly can support the production of many useful works, and there is little empirical data to suggest either greater harms or better alternatives. But of course that position ceases to hold if and when such data is found.
YouTube Content ID and equivalent takedowns of content on other services (including false claims, videos shut down because of incidental music, or actual use of content in a transformative way). Remixers/mash-ups. Romhacks/mods/etc. "Abridged series" (of the humorous variety, not literal abridging). Fan works of all kinds. The entire emulation scene. Tools for reading and rescuing content from proprietary file formats. Drivers developed through reverse-engineering to figure out how the hardware works. Projects (both Open Source and proprietary) potentially threatened by the previous ruling on APIs in this exact lawsuit. The old SCO lawsuit and all the time and money it wasted, plus the harm done by the FUD. Any project that has ever had to defend itself over "fair use" in court, whether successful or not.
That was about 5 minutes worth of examples; plenty more where those came from.
It seems to me that many of your examples are more symptoms of today's often absurd implementations, rather than the basic idea of copyright itself.
As I argued in another post, I don't think copyright should ever become an artificial tool to limit communication or interoperability, and as such work necessary to that purpose should indeed not be subject to copyright. It already isn't, to varying degrees, in various jurisdictions.
False takedown claims and the problems that result are more a symptom of allowing centralised hosting of content than anything else. YouTube and the like have no obligation to continue hosting anyone's content if it causes them trouble, regardless of the legitimacy or otherwise of any complaints. As long as there are also no real penalties in law for malicious or negligent actions by big rightsholders, you're going to get this sort of problem anyway.
There are already supposed to be provisions, under banners like fair use or fair dealing, for various applications of works that don't prejudice the original intent of the copyright. Here again it's clear that regulatory capture is hard at work undermining the system, but likewise here again that's due to weak political leadership rather than an inherent problem with copyright.
The areas you mentioned where I'm not so sure are things like remixes, fan works, and mods. In many cases these derivative works do depend on the original creative assets for most of their value, and as such perhaps they should not be exempt from the normal copyright provisions.
In short, I don't see any of those as particularly compelling examples against the basic idea of copyright as a temporary monopoly on reproduction of creative works, subject to reasonable limitations of scope. Rather, I think they are compelling examples of how badly copyright laws have been captured and distorted over time by powerful special interests, particularly in the US, and to some extent of the dangers of giving up control of our own content to third party hosting or distribution services with their own priorities that don't necessarily match our own.
It seems to me that you've moved the goalposts. I certainly agree that a less broken system of copyright would work better than the one we have. But the question at hand was whether there existed cases in which copyright has harmed works that might thrive more in the absence of copyright, as a part of evaluating whether it makes sense to consider the state of "alternative models" given the current legal system directly supporting the primary copyright model and in many cases harming those alternatives. You've then reasserted that you want the "basic idea" of copyright as a means of dismissing these examples, but that wasn't the question at hand.
In a model without copyright, it wouldn't matter whether a work was derivative, or whether it depended on the "original creative assets"; what would matter is whether people found it useful, interesting, and worth supporting/promoting.
(As for the comment on decentralization of services, I'd agree, but at the same time that particular set of problems also wouldn't exist in the absence of copyright.)
I suppose I did move the goalposts, however unintentional it may have been. Yes, what I'm really defending here is the basic premise of copyright. I have no interest in defending copyright that effectively lasts forever, or that has such wide scope that we see billion-dollar lawsuits over work that shouldn't have been covered by copyright in the first place, or other similarly obvious abuses from the relatively recent past.
However, if the underlying question we're asking here is still whether copyright adversely affects other potential economic models for creating and distributing new works, I think my original point remains valid. How would the scenarios you mentioned support alternative model(s) that would be more attractive to creators than what we have (or at least, should have) under some sort of copyright scheme?
Would you share some of those examples? I've heard this argument made before, and I agree that undermining alternative models is both logically possible and a plausible concern in practice. However, the only examples anyone has come up with so far have been some form of derivative work with questionable added value.
Lacking any more compelling evidence, I tend to come back to balance that copyright is one economic principle that clearly can support the production of many useful works, and there is little empirical data to suggest either greater harms or better alternatives. But of course that position ceases to hold if and when such data is found.