Should we ditch Jar Jar Binks?

Although I definitely would have concerns for what would happen to artists if copyright laws were completely abandoned, I’m not entirely convinced that they do more good than they do harm. Whether they last for 75 years after the artist’s death, or just 75 minutes, what is the point in prohibiting others from taking your work and making it (possibly) better? Yes, I know that sentence sounds strange. But seriously, if “Star Wars” is made better by excluding Jar Jar Binks, and consequently the maker of the Star Wars/The Phantom Edit profits from his improvement on the film, maybe by allowing this sort of freedom we will actually be encouraging artists to make their work even better the first time around to prevent people from taking it, tweaking it, and selling it later. If the original is great enough, it would seem that a copyright law might not be necessary. The heightened competition a work would face after its creation under a system without copyright law could create huge incentives for people to become even more creative and ingenious in their work. In the same way that Laissez Fair capitalism can lead to a better economy with increased efficiency, I find myself wondering if a more Laissez Fair policy regarding copyright law might also be beneficial for our society. When I think about the history of copyright law, and how over time it has become increasingly stringent while at the same time power is falling more and more into fewer and fewer hands, perhaps smaller artists were not better off many many years ago before Disney fabricated the idea that copyrights will last until 75 years after the artist’s death.