Figure out how to fund research that doesn't need to rely upon licensing of patents.
The bold statements of "eliminate copyright and it will solve {problem}" without the corresponding steps that you would need to get there are intellectually dishonest and ignore the current economic system and wellbeing of the authors and artists who produce work.
I would also note that I do value the software freedoms and without copyright there would be no way to enforce the redistribution of the source and the improvements that a company makes on it. "Here's the binary, but good luck trying to back port the bug fixes we did" is something that the licensing that copyleft provides.
The approach of "burn down copyright and something wonderful will emerge from its ashes" is not a convincing argument.
> ignore the current economic system and wellbeing of the authors and artists who produce work.
I'm not ignoring it, I will freely admit that I do not care about preserving the wealth of Atherton and Beverly Hills at the expense of poor children having second rate information. If they can figure out a way to make money in a world with actual property rights, great for them.
I also don't think Oxcontin or mRNA vaccines or Fox News or CNN, etc, make a good case for having patents and copyrights.
I am. Everything I build is public domain. It's cost me a lot of money but I can look myself in the mirror and see an honest man.
> not by proposing that everyone else lose the ability to make a living off of content that they have created.
Copyright is sleazy. Plain and simple. It's indefensible. It is Intellectual Slavery. I'm just saying the truth that people don't want to hear. Stephan Kinsella is the one to read/watch/listen to for all the extended and comprehensive rebuttals.