Copyright could easily be adjusted to be beneficial to society. Limit it to twenty years, make it non-transferable and nullify any contracts that bind the exclusive marketing of copyrightable material to one company. That would allow the copyright holder to (i) make some money from his works for some time, and (ii) would get limit the power of the publishing industry in a way that is beneficial to the artists. The publisher could still market and sell the works and pay only lousy percentages, but at least you could change to another publisher at any time.
Right now, the problem are the publishers (and Amazon's POD, regarding books). They make most of the money and use their existing grip of death on the market to coerce artists into their scheme. For example, young authors are warned from the start that if they just publish one book by their own publishing company (as opposed to POD, which is accepted because everybody wants a piece of that cake), they will be burned forever and never can have a book published at a larger publishing house. Or take record labels who make artists sign so-called 360 contracts.
The English/US market is huge but don't forget that in many if not most countries even fairly successful writers and musicians can barely make a living - the markets are simply not big enough. So if you want to read books and listen to music produced by independently thinking individuals and not just marketing/advertising companies, you should not to abolish copyright but modify it to empower the actual artists.