It seems I haven't misread your post at all.
And there you go again.
For all we know, feppe might have earned good money from his photography, but he's chosen not to.
But he currently earns money from outside of photography according to his website and that is what is important. Why that is the case is not really relevant.
Choosing so is something you label as "naive/ignorant" solely because he's not a professional photographer, and that is the point I'm disagreeing with.
Feppe's opinion isn't naive or ignorant. It's informed, but it's not your viewpoint.
Ever heard of perspective? Feppe comes across as what would be described as an armchair critic. One, who like most theoretical debaters would probably change their tune if actually in shoes of the person they are critiquing. It's so very easy to suggest something that doesn't affect you or in this case your income. And no I do not think suggesting 10 yr limit on copyright is an informed suggestion, it's a stupid one if a [professional] artist, but simply a naiive one if you don't make money from creative works.
Make rational arguments against it rather than dragging us further down in the muck, please.
I've made rational points, though it seems as Lightstand said above, that you simply prefer to misread and nitpick about anything other than the actual topic. I'm guessing that a rational point would only be acknowledged if it was something that you already agreed with.
What's your photographic status? You don't even link to any of your work, so can't even tell if you are a photographer, let alone professional or amateur.