Yeah, that's something I'd vote for, and am campaigning for...
I'd settle for some kind of sensible reform to bring "intellectual rights" back into some kind of sane bargain with society for a limited-term monopoly privilege, not a "property right" asserted to be both a natural entitlement and effectively perpetual. That's also, I believe, the normal kind of platform asserted by a typical "Pirate Party".
Given the current state of play, however, I've become an abolitionist outright, on the basis that would be preferable to what we have now. It makes me very angry that to all practical purposes almost the entire cultural heritage of the 20th century, new AND old, is locked away from use by me for creative purposes by effectively perpetual "intellectual property rights", where works produced before my birth will NEVER be out of copyright in my lifetime - it wasn't supposed to work like that, the next generation was SUPPOSED to be able to freely build on and develop from the creativity of the previous generation, and in their turn benefit from a LIMITED period of monopoly rights.
Copyright law isn't working, not for me, and not for many others. It's being overturned, de-facto, by the available technology and the widespread contempt for the unjust law; doubtful if it will be overturned de-jure as you describe, I'd have thought, though maybe in 50 years time this will all look bizarre to the society of that day, and people will be trying to imagine how anyone could ever think in terms of "intellectual property rights"...?
"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller