The fundamental problem is that, as you noted, IP is free to copy. It is not free to create, and some arrangement must be made to pay for creation.
The approach of current IP law is to artificially imbue IP with attributes that make copies rivalrous and excludable, so that the creator can sell them on the free market. The free market will decide which IP should be produced and which should not, and the creation costs are paid by the people that use the IP.
Advantages of this approach: costs paid by users--if I don't read your novel, I don't pay for your novel; free market controls production decisions.
Disadvantage of this approach: price to users is higher than the "economically correct" price.
There are ways to deal with IP that do not involve artificial scarcity. One alternative approach, which was popular a long time ago, is the private patronage approach. Artists find a rich person to pay them to create. I'm not sure there are enough rich patrons to make this work at the scale consumers like to consume art today, and I don't think we'd have the artistic diversity we now have under a private patronage system.
Another approach is the begging approach.
Probably the best alternative to the current approach is the public goods approach. Treat artistic works like we treat public parks. Anyone could freely copy and share, and the creation would be funded by the government out of tax revenue.
The main problems with this approach are (1) determining the budget for art funding, and (2) deciding which artists get funded and by how much. The budget can be dealt with by tying it to a tax on something that correlates well with public consumption of art. Probably the best way to deal with deciding which artists get funded is to track consumer use, similar to the way we now do in order to determine royalties, and base funding on that.
The fundamental problem is that, as you noted, IP is free to copy. It is not free to create, and some arrangement must be made to pay for creation.
The approach of current IP law is to artificially imbue IP with attributes that make copies rivalrous and excludable, so that the creator can sell them on the free market. The free market will decide which IP should be produced and which should not, and the creation costs are paid by the people that use the IP.
Advantages of this approach: costs paid by users--if I don't read your novel, I don't pay for your novel; free market controls production decisions.
Disadvantage of this approach: price to users is higher than the "economically correct" price.
There are ways to deal with IP that do not involve artificial scarcity. One alternative approach, which was popular a long time ago, is the private patronage approach. Artists find a rich person to pay them to create. I'm not sure there are enough rich patrons to make this work at the scale consumers like to consume art today, and I don't think we'd have the artistic diversity we now have under a private patronage system.
Another approach is the begging approach.
Probably the best alternative to the current approach is the public goods approach. Treat artistic works like we treat public parks. Anyone could freely copy and share, and the creation would be funded by the government out of tax revenue.
The main problems with this approach are (1) determining the budget for art funding, and (2) deciding which artists get funded and by how much. The budget can be dealt with by tying it to a tax on something that correlates well with public consumption of art. Probably the best way to deal with deciding which artists get funded is to track consumer use, similar to the way we now do in order to determine royalties, and base funding on that.