There's no evidence this is true. This is already the world we live in, and creativity is high.
> It's not like the farmers or the apartment owners are going to let people "pirate" a warm place to sleep or a good meal.
I made a specific point that IP is fundamentally different.
> The Grateful Dead, for instance, let people freely copy mix tapes of their concerts and made their money on gate revenues. (They didn't let people in for free. Nope. )
That exactly the point. Monetizing through live shows is already how most music artists make money.
> This creates inefficiencies and it just isn't fair to those who just want to sell their creations without holding a concert or drumming up some other scheme to get people to pay.
It's competition that benefits the consumers of those creations and an opportunity for middle-men to connect creators with consumers (see Patreon). Define "fair" when copyright is often used as a way to censor and steal from smaller creators.
> Most "open source" companies spend endless hours trying to concoct ways to open source just enough of their product while forcing enough people to pay so everyone can eat.
And the outcome is that the public has access to countless sets of open source software alternatives. Which is amazing for users and innovators.
> I've found that most of the people who speak like pitaj are in universities and they make their money through some mixture of outrageous tuition bills that can't be dodged or government funding from taxes that can't be escaped.
Not true for me.