You bring up some interesting points but I think you need to approach the issue with more of an open mind (Not trying to criticize, just trying to argue a different view point).

Your first point

...it's a weapon wielded in legal battles where the point isn't to promote creative work but to elbow competition out of the market.

This is more of a patent issue than copyright, and patents don't last nearly as long (14 years). (I know you said "intellectual property" but I wanted to emphasize the difference) And while it's easy to point out ways that patents can hinder development, they have very important purposes. Without patent laws if I designed a product but didn't have the financial means to mass produce it right away, a giant corporation that does could take my design, produce it, and sell it before I even get a chance to start, leaving me with nothing. Corporations can hinder development using patent laws, but imagine what they could do without them.

Your second point about crowdfunded works.

I think most works funded like this still are under copyright. Even if the author Creative Commons licenses it, they are still claiming copyright and are reserving some rights granted to them under copyright.

Your third point

...copyright enforcement is currently abused for internet censorship...

While I concede that it is often abused, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed. After all, a computer could be used for illegal and/or abusive purposes but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to have one. And we have Fair Use laws that protect us from such abuses.

And your forth point about DRM:

I think DRM has some of the worst consequences out of any laws surrounding copyright. But you are permitted to circumvent DRM for fair use purposes. While I feel that there should be more uses considered fair use, every four years we have the right to petition the librarian of congress for more. (Thank you EFF for fighting for more rights every time.)

So, I guess my point is copyright, patent, and trade-mark laws are not perfect but they are necessary. I personally choose to support the content creators who use liberal licenses and policies. I use open-source software over proprietary, when I buy games I am more likely to by them from providers that offer them DRM free, and I am a huge fan of people who choose to creative commons license their works. But that doesn't mean everyone should have to follow these principles. Despite intellectual property laws being imperfect, completely getting rid of them is not the solution.