Monetising creative work does not require copyright
When I tell people I'm opposed to copyright law, the most common reaction is a sort of bemused "Huh? You don't think artists should be paid for their work?". This reaction is totally understandable at face value -- we are so used to thinking of copyright as the mechanism for ensuring artists get paid, that we think of it as essentially the only possible mechanism for doing that. I don't think it is the only way, or even a particularly good way, but I recognise that that position deserves some explanation.
How copyright is supposed to work
Copyright is a special kind of legal right that gives the author of a creative work a near-total monopoly on how that work can be used or re-used by other people. It prevents unauthorised third parties from producing or selling copies of that work, or from incorporating it into their own work, without permission.
The point of granting this monopoly is that making a book or a song from scratch is time-consuming and expensive, but making copies is instant and free. Therefore if we let people indiscriminately copy stuff, selling copies becomes a very bad business model. You get to charge whatever you want for the first copy, at which point the market becomes instantaneously flooded with five gazillion copies that cost basically nothing, and you die hungry and alone.
You also have to stop people from making new works that incorporate your own, because then they could just improve it very slightly and outcompete you. They might already be rich or famous, and therefore able to pass that work off as their own. That feels very unfair.
Anyway, that's how it's supposed to work. Clearly I have some problems with it.
Being able to make copies is very important, actually
One thing is worth stressing at the start: having cheap copies of creative works is actually a really good thing. If every artist or intellectual got a good wage and could live compfortably, it would be totally reprehensible to limit the sharing of their work.
justification
Being able to make derivative works is also very important. I am personally not very sympathetic to "moral rights". Fanfiction is cool actually.
Paying for the first copy is totally workable
It does carry risks though.
Getting money from an institution also works
Also it is more directly comparable with other kinds of work (rent is bad).
Also it is kinder to smaller artists doing good but less shiny work.
However it does require trustworthy institutions (but we have music labels already, and they do okay).