So a corner of the net I pay attention to is having the usual round of "that should be free!" about books and is descending into copyright yargling.
I find the general pattern of analysis generally lacking for two reasons; one is that it's trying to get capitalism to produce fairness, and two is that it's focused on an amorphous abstract taxonomy of mythological rights, rather than the basic purpose, which is to pay the creator enough to keep creating. (This is more than "to live".)
So, one. Copyright shouldn't exist. It did a sort of plausible job of paying the creator in the era of laborious manual typesetting; it's totally pointless now.
Two. No corporation ever created anything. Creation is a function of natural persons, and solely natural persons.
Three. There is no legitimate barrier to creating transformative work, but commercial transformative work with immediate derivation should pay the creator of the work from which it is derived.
One implies things about distribution.
The post office, or the ministry of culture, or the regional arts council, or the national archives, or the public library, becomes the repository of your work in its legally meaningful archival form. (NOT inherently "electronic form".) Someone who wants to produce material artefacts of that kind of work can select a work from this canonical repository and proceed. For every copy they make, they owe a fee. (The amount of the fee is an implementation detail; enough for the creator to keep creating, past a certain threshold of popularity. And possibly varying by type of art, but flat within a type. Your fee for one copy of a book and the fee the most popular author in the world gets for one copy of a book are the same.) The fee goes to the creator or the creator's estate for life + 20 or median age of death + 20, whichever is longer. After that time, the fee goes into the system to reduce its need for direct funding from taxes. There is never, ever, in any way, a fee to register your work or to maintain the archival copy. This is a public service.
(Note that there's no right of alteration involved or implied. And book covers, album art, etc. is a separate creative work incurring its own fee.)
Two implies things about collaboration.
If it takes eighty seven people to produce an opera -- to sing, to make costumes, to play in the orchestra, to write the score, to write the libretto, to manage the lighting, etc. -- every live instance of that opera is something to which they all contribute. Their share of the fee must be paid to each of them for each time. If there's a recording, the share of the fee is due each of them for every copy. (How the shares work is another implementation detail. It should be legislatively constrained to be flat; not more than an order of magnitude between the star tenor and the apprentice scenery painter.)
Living creators cannot surrender their fees; these will be paid. They will be paid to all creators, the mad, incarcerated, addicted, or appalling included, without exception. No contract can be made concerning the fees, and a contract found to be de facto concerning the fees is unlawful and void. "Work for hire" ceases.
Three says that if you make a direct transformative work with a living creator (when you start!) and sell it some amount less than half of the fee goes to the living creator whose work you are transforming. (Let us say three eighths.)
You can't say "based on" without their permission; they may exercise a moral right to make prefatory remarks up to five percent of the length of work absent their remarks, which will always be included in the work (which become part of the official archive copy), so the library will tell them when you register your archival copy of the completed work. Deceptive marketing has to be defined and prevented, which is another one of those implementation details.
Fee-evading distribution is of course fraud and tax evasion, and by treaty the government in whose territory this takes place is obliged to pay the fees which are being evaded.
So, yes, lots of implementation details, but it keeps the creators creating. It makes it easy to create transformative works. It puts the culture back in the public sphere. It keeps cops from using copyright as a means of avoiding being recorded.