Many things are in this category, not just IP. Paying for them can be kind of tricky, because who wants to spend a year, say, writing a book when someone decides they can just go ahead and copy it.
IP has been a pretty good, if imperfect solution to the problem. Those wishing to be rid of it ought to either try and suggest another way of producing information goods, or be honest enough to say they have no idea and that information goods that require substantial time and effort may not be produced in large quantities in their imagined future.
About 10 years ago I had pretty much this exact conversation with RMS over email. As a video game developer, I made box software that I needed people to buy in order for me to get paid. I put it to him that without keeping our code and assets "closed" we couldn't make games. RMS's response was that he'd rather we not make games then: if we couldn't make them "open" then he'd rather we not make them at all.
I still write software for money. GNU/Linux is still doing rather well. Thanks to the law, I still get to make that business model choice.
However, I do not confuse a car with a piece of software or music track. If we are discussing moral rights, or "property", we cannot have such a discussion without being clear on our terms. Nobody is smacked on the head, nor any "stuff" taken, when someone torrents an MP3. However, people continue to die having their "stuff" taken.
I think RMS' response is honest, even if I disagree with it to some degree. What I dislike are the handwavy answers about people being able to work on stuff without some source of funding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_%28economics%29
Many things are in this category, not just IP. Paying for them can be kind of tricky, because who wants to spend a year, say, writing a book when someone decides they can just go ahead and copy it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions
IP has been a pretty good, if imperfect solution to the problem. Those wishing to be rid of it ought to either try and suggest another way of producing information goods, or be honest enough to say they have no idea and that information goods that require substantial time and effort may not be produced in large quantities in their imagined future.