>>The GPL stipulates that source-code must be made available, and any derivatives must retain the GPL. <<
That's true, it's called the 'copyleft' provision, but you've missed the point of why RMS created it, which was:
>> Without copyright protection of [any] source code, it would be perfectly legal to reverse engineer any [proprietary] software derived from GNU software to see how it works, and publicly release the changes to the code. <<
Without copyright on source code, there would be no need for copyleft.
>> That's copyright in action that has helped shape software released under that licence. <<
Do you see why this is wrong now?
As for the BSD/MIT licenses (exluding the 4-clause, which almost nobody uses now), it essentially places the source code in the Public Domain, even in countries where the copyright laws do not allow authors to disavow their copyright. As such, it is functionally equivalent to CC0:http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Can you see now why works under either of these licenses would be unaffected by any reform of copyright including its abolition?
>> How about a practical example of intellectual property and how it's existence drives development? Who likes ARM? <<
Again, proving Stallman's point that the nonsense phrase "intellectual property" creates confusion. The example you raise here defends Patent Law. This is as different from Copyright Law as it is from Trademark Law. Copyright could be abolished entirely, and it would make not one iota of difference to Patents or Trademarks.
As I said before, most free culture advocates support the use of Trademarks as a form of identification (although I'd venture that punishment for violation of Trademark should only apply to misleading commercial use, and only incur financial penalties, not loss of liberty), and only oppose Patent Law where it is applied to inappropriate fields like mathematics (incl. software) and life. To paraphrase Stallman; to oppose all three because you oppose one is to fall into the same confusion suffered by proponents of "IP".
>> Recognition of intellectual property is integral to a lot of development <<
Funny, that's not what the various development groups involved in the open hardware movement say:
CERN launches Open Hardware initiative: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/pressrel ... 8.11E.html
Open Hardware Repository: http://www.ohwr.org/http://opencores.org/http://www.openfirmware.org/
>> even open-source which still needs mass produced hardware to run on at the very least. <<
We use mass produced hardware because up until now it's what we've had to hand. The same way most of us used Windows for years until we found an alternative. As the Maker movement develops the capacity to make customized hardware, free code software will increasinly run on #8 wire hardware based on open hardware designs and made locally.