Here is the ideal: we pay people for the time/effort/resources to create, then we all copy and use that product freely and unrestrictedly. Everyone gets compens

Here is the ideal: we pay people for the time/effort/resources to create, then we all copy and use that product freely and unrestrictedly. Everyone gets compensated for any loss, and everyone has freedom to access all gain. The idea of property really does not apply. It is the wrong way to think about the problem. We want new and better systems of organisation, but the restrictions of property are what we want to avoid if at all possible. > You have no fundamental right to enjoy the innovations produced by others without compensating them. That seems quite wrong; in fact the opposite is more like the truth. The form of a moral obligation is to put the interests of others before yourself. That is, to put it simply, you have a duty to help others. If others enjoy your products without compensating you, that is good -- it is pretty much what a moral act means. Now, you might object that someone has sacrificed effort to produce, they must deserve something. But that adds something else: the idea of loss or harm, and this is precisely where IP/abstract-goods and property fundamentally diverge. Abstract goods can be used by any number of people without reducing anyone else's use or causing loss. If you want to solve the problem you must see that thinking in terms of property is to make a mistake right at the beginning.