Of course, there is no such system, but capitalism is the closest we've gotten. Copyright is an attempt to get closer to that system than pure capitalism, but I don't think it works.
Kickstarter has already enabled the creation of lots of stuff that simply wouldn't have been possible before. But you're right that it might not work for infinitely copyable art. We'll see. My real point, though, is that Kickstarter shows that new technologies are enabling models that weren't possible before. I think Kickstarter is only the beginning.
"In an ideal world, he would produce these works and society would reward him. For me the only question is, how to bring about that ideal world? Copyright is closer to that world than free copying."
Again, the problem is how to decide who provides value. Capitalism is the best system we've come up with. It's not perfect, but I'm arguing that copyright is worse.
Re economics: But I'm saying that a mostly free-market economy is the closest we've come to making things happen the way they SHOULD. In my view, copyright is an artificial restriction that doesn't do what it's supposed to, which is to encourage artistic works. It just changes the type of art that gets created, while enriching middle men.
re IP: I think what I'm against is the conception of ideas a property. I'm not against attribution, or enforcement of attribution, but notice that attribution has nothing to do with property if you just think of it as not lying. Ideas as property also reinforces the, imo faulty, notion that there is any one single creator of any idea ex nihilo. Ideas come from other ideas, and circumstance, and brilliance, and the more ideas can move around, the more ideas we'll have.
re changing minds: I changed my mind after many online discussions, offline discussions, and reading. And generally for me, when I do change my mind, it's not during a discussion. Instead, it's usually after I have a discussion in which I refuse to give ground, and then later I simply realize that I've changed positions.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I think the desire to be consistent is real, but not always helpful.
My question is: if you don't think anyone changes their minds from online discussion, why are you engaging in this one?
I've read Lanier before, and I find him fascinating, but I don't ever really follow him to his conclusions. I'll check out the link. Thanks!