I'm confused by this argument.

Copyright exists in order that creative works are sold for more than their marginal cost of reproduction, and the profits from that are directed towards the author. Having the exclusive right to produce the copies, copyright, enabled creativity to be rewarded.

Making distribution cheaper and easier makes copyright perhaps make more sense, not less, but didn't change the underlying logic of trying needing to sell creative works for more than their marginal reproduction cost, even if you figure that cost is zero.

Except for scientific publishing. Burn that all down. Because the authors aren't getting any money (and actually want distribution, not payment) so copyright of scientific works isn't achieving anything positive for society at all.