There is still an up front cost associated with the creation of software or works that get distributed in a digital format. Even in the best case scenario where the hardware was free, the OS was free, and the software tools were free, the creator still has to spend his or her time on making the copyrighted work. They deserve to have options that allow them to be compensated for that labor. I reject the false dichotomy that states copyright law should continue to be abused or be done away with entirely.

The example you provided regarding the printing press resonates with me as an author. I have not included any form of DRM with the digital copies of my book and I won't go after individuals who pirate it. But, I will enforce my copyright on the work if a large company like Amazon tries to start selling it without my permission. When you say there should be no copyright, you're saying a giant corporation I want nothing to do with is entitled to profit off of three years of my labor, for free, without my consent.

There needs to be a more nuanced approach where laws are written and interpreted in a way that benefits regular everyday people. Abolishing copyright would do the opposite.