I agree with IP being a messy and (currently) necessary compromise. The problem is that it requires retro-fitting an economic incentive structure based on scarce and defensible atoms to a good that is none of those. It's like asking what kinds of rail-roads we should build for our cars to drive on.

Sure, we can continue to limp forward with the mess we have now, paying the huge legal overhead, as well as the opportunity cost of the economic activity which is hindered by this environment (patent trolls, remix culture, etc).

But I don't think we should be content with that. I'd much rather we explore new incentive systems which are oriented specifically toward knowledge work. We already do this in the form of new business models: commoditizing your components, freemium, gift economies, etc. But there is still a lot of unexplored space in creating new ways to profit from the creation of data, either by creating new business models, or drafting new social conventions (government-backed or otherwise).

The devil is in the details:

How do you propose we give someone the means to make a living writing books, for instance? Someone who is at the margin, not Stephen King ( http://journal.dedasys.com/2012/01/21/thinking-at-the-margin )?

* Commoditizing components doesn't work very well with books. This might work ok for saturday morning cartoons, where there are toys to be purchased, but it's a fairly limited model, especially for most authors, who don't have much else to sell.

* Freemium means that you still make people pay for the goods and they are not allowed to freely copy them.

* "Gift economies" is very hand wavy and, by and large, does not put food on the table as far as I can tell.

I suspect that there are new business models, but ultimately, it comes down to a question of scarcity. If information goods are, by law, not scarce, but the time needed to produce them is scarce, then they will be underprovisioned.

I agree that the devil is in the details. But I don't think creating artificial scarcity is necessarily the only way to create a market. There is still a major social component to trade that is too often ignored by economists, and people will sometimes pay even when they don't have to.

I think the case of podcasts is illustrative here. Despite a lack of DRM, a convention of free-as-in-beer, and a zero lawsuits (that I know of), the field has been thriving for 10 years using incentive structures which do not require IP:

- Pure Promotion, such as comedians who put out a free podcast to attract fans for live performances.

- Up-sells, whether for additional premium content, apps, t-shirts, etc.

- Donations, which at minimum can defray overhead costs. (It's worth noting that Kickstarter is fairly indistinguishable from a donation/gift economy, assuming the reward isn't a simple pre-order.)

- Advertising, while a dirty business model for producer and consumer alike, still can pay the bills, especially if ad content is tasteful and targeted.

Now, these methods are by no means the only ones possible, and that's my point. Rather than to try to create scarcity out of abundance, I think we're better off embracing it, and finding new, indirect ways to profit. To re-use PG's analogy, rather than suing the smell-stealer, the restauranteur could invite people to enjoy some free smells, knowing that some would be enticed to pay for a meal. Or he could buy the land next door and rent the space for gatherings, touting free smells. And on and on.

The same way I propose blacksmiths, phonograph repairmen and punch card programmers make a living: not doing those things. Just because some people can't make a living doing something does not mean the government should protect it.

Those are practical professions superceded by other professions/products/whatever that could do the same thing, better.

"Producers of information goods" is a far broader category, including authors, musicians, movie and software people; and one not superceded by something more practical, unless you consider twitter a good replacement for books.

And government protection to create a market is a fine idea - it's in the US constitution, for example. It just needs rebalancing.

I'm arguing that there is one profession: information distribution, and multiple ways to do it. Some of them involve creating your own content, some do not.

I am also not arguing against all instances of government created markets, by the way. Just saying that failure to be able to make a living in a way that people used to does not by definition necessitate being saved by the government.

> I'm arguing that there is one profession: information distribution

To me that is confusing, because in my mind distribution is a different act than creation of information goods.

Movie theaters, dvd's, netflix.... those are distribution, and I don't care too much if new ones arise and old ones go away. But I enjoy a movie once in a while, and would be sad to live in a world where it is no longer possible to do anything but the cheapest of indy efforts.

I am a UX guy. I care mostly about the user's perspective. From the user's perspective the end content is what ultimately matters. It doesn't matter who makes it. I think there's an argument to be made that the well could dry up, but I don't think it's a well substantiated one.

> I think there's an argument to be made that the well could dry up, but I don't think it's a well substantiated one.

There may not be proof either way, but if people do not have to pay for information goods, it only stands to reason that there will be less of them produced. Certainly, they won't go away entirely, but why would anyone produce a movie like Avatar if there is no legal way they can get paid for it?

> You could always give performances and charge for those!

So, software as a service? It appears we've been heading that way for a while.

> Joking aside, I think that IP is and should remain a messy compromise. There are no easy answers. Were it to cease to exist completely, it would reduce the incentives for producers, and thus consumers would be worse off too because they would have less software, books, movies and music to enjoy.

I'm not sure we'd see less content, but less financially motivated content. Keep in mind, copyright is not the only way to subsidize content creation.

New music genres and artists are giving away their music online today -- and not just some of them. I'd say most new electronic music winds up on Soundcloud from the artists themselves. RIAA has a choke-hold on Pop music and that's it, but given the nature of Pop music, that's unsurprising.

It would be impractical to expect artists to give away their content with nothing in return... so create a business model that relies on payment before you produce the content rather than after you share it.

Copyright will die a slow and painful death, whether or not it is a compromise by today's standards. What are you going to do when I can put every HD movie ever created on my hard-disk? Enforcement isn't a gradient, it either largely works or largely doesn't.

> less financially motivated content.

'Financially motivated' means: it pays the bills, puts food on the table, and gives me a place to live. If someone can't do that as a producer of information goods, they'll have to do something else, and therefore produce less, leaving consumers worse off.