No, you have copyright completely backward. The point is to prevent intellectual theft by companies like apple. The goal is to enable people who create new products to be compensated for them, and to have a way to enforce their right to get paid when companies like apple try to steal from them... like apple wants to do here.
If I develop a product such a film that people are interested in seeing, then I have a right to charge a fee to let them see it. Copyright exists to enable me to enforce that legally if necessary. Without copyright protection, I would have no legal way to enforce my intellectual property. In other worse, without copyright protection, creators can't create. That's how copyright benefits society, not by forcing creators to give their creations away for nothing. Or are you an apple schill trying to defend apple's willingness to steal from a legion of artists for its own benefit?
A machine that can make apples can be copyrighted, apples cannot. Ergo, your example is horseshit.
You do have a right to audition a song from a musician before purchasing more, if that's your preference; if the artist in question won't let you audition their music, then it comes down to salesmanship.
So... either you have a right to get paid for your work, or you're full of shit. If you're only able to come with a random hole as an example, then you should just give up and admit that you have no value to society. If someone needs a hole dug and you dig it for them, you have a right to be compensated, so once again your example is horseshit.
If someone has a product that you want, then you should compensate them for it. If you aren't interested, then you should not. That is the heart of capitalism, and whether you like Taylor Swift or not, it's what her letter is about.