> To me it appears that individuals and large companies benefit from copyright asymmetrically, which is the core of the argument.

The correct response to that is to fix the asymmetry, not blow the rights up entirely.

Quoth the OP:

> It doesn't protect the livelihood of individuals and small businesses in practice. Instead, it's a weapon wielded by large corporations to protect their monopolies.

Post Citizens United, you could say the same thing about free speech. Does the OP want to abolish that, too?

The fact that the wealthy (corporations and individuals), with massive teams of lawyers and propagandists, can often better take advantage of the rights I also enjoy is not a compelling reason for abolishing my rights.

This is true, but is it unique to copyright? Don't large companies benefit asymmetrically from most things?