It's a business model problem but the IP defender fear that it isn't possible to make money or there will be less money to be made after IP are abolished. They

It's a business model problem but the IP defender fear that it isn't possible to make money or there will be less money to be made after IP are abolished. They want to hold the IP abolitionist to the highest standard of evidence and at the same time, not give up every inches of ground without a really strong fight. Meanwhile, the abolitionists have the hard task of finding examples. Then, the defenders alway have an objections to all the examples that the abolitionists did find, which are diverse range of examples. For example, popular band business model wouldn't work for small, in between-size, and vice-versa or mock business models that sell ancillary goods such as T-shirt. All the objections by IP defenders is nice and all, except it's irrational. There is no attempt on behalf of IP defenders to gather experimental data, any kind. There is no attempt to think but refute every single abolitionist's suggestions. They make any excuses for staying still, good or bad. For the reason of criticizing without offering much in return, few IP opponents have the ability to force a model update in me or at least an ample amount of models to investigate. One recent model update was making me take into account that monopoly profit can be use to maintain marketshare against copyfree and copyleft opponents. Another model was that weak DRM technologies sometime does increase sales though I didn't do much reading into it.