If the use case doesn't matter, then quotes and parody are illegal, as well as historical archiving and scientific analysis.

Well, there is a distinction between use and obtaining it. For stealing, the use doesn't matter. For later use, it does. That's also what licenses are concerned with.

That means that every time some new use becomes desirable, the law must be changes. This is obviously stifling for progress in science and culture.

Yes, that's obviously the wrong way round. Usually things should be allowed per default, unless they're specifically prohibited or handled by law. We got it the wrong way around, here. However, I don't think it's the other way around in the USA either. While Fair Use is a broad limitation/exemption, it's still concerned with specific exemptions. For example AI wouldn't be allowed by default unless it gets incorporated into law, but they're referring back to the already existing, specific exemption to do "transformative" work. Very much alike our exemptions. Just that it is way more broad.

Actually, no. Theft is prosecuted by the government; police and courts. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter. Damages are paid but there is no criminal prosecution.

Well, it is. In the United States, willful copyright infringement carries a maximum fine of $150,000 per instance. In Germany it seems to be prison sentence up to 3 years or a fine.

Maybe you would like to see copyright infringement to be punished more harshly and enforced more strictly?

No, copyright should be toned down. Preferably for regular citizens as well and not just the industry.

That's an interesting idea. It's not how we do anything else. You don't usually have to pay more for the same thing, depending on who you are or how much you use it.

You're wrong here. People do have to pay more if they license a picture to show to their 20 million customers or use it in an advertising campaign, than I do for putting it up in the hallway. Airbus pays like 100x the price for the same set of nuts and bolts than someone else. A kitchen appliance for industrial use costs like 3x the price of an end user kitchen appliance. Because it's more sturdy and made for 24/7 use. A DVD rental business pays more for a DVD than the average customer.

Should there be exceptions for celebrities and such, or will they be able to demand licensing fees?

No exceptions, no licensing, no fees. This is strictly to avoid bad things like doxxing, ruining people's lives...

Then much public content can't be used, after all. The likes of Reddit, Facebook, or Discord will be able to charge licensing fees for their content, after all. [...]

They already do. There's a big war going on in the internet. I've told you how my server was targeted by Alibaba and it nearly took down the database. All other people have implemented countermeasures as well. Try scraping Reddit or downloading 5 Youtube videos. It's a thing of the past, you'll get rate-limited and your downloads will quickly start to fail.

It's very typically European. You rage against Meta's monopoly but you also call for laws to enforce and strengthen it. I think it's the echo of feudalism in the culture.

Well, I think taking authors' livelihood in favour of mega corporations is enforcing and strengthening their monopoly and the echo of feudalism. I'd be less concerned if it was some research institute doing something for the public or progress. Or if a programming book author was making more than 100,000€ a year and they're "the monopoly". But it's the other way around. This application of Fair Use is in favour of the feudal lord companies and to the detriment of the average person.