Lessig, to whom I think you're referring with 'free culture', isn't really arguing for no IP. He is merely reminding everyone that copyright, patents, etc. are

Lessig, to whom I think you're referring with 'free culture', isn't really arguing for no IP. He is merely reminding everyone that copyright, patents, etc. are there for a reason and that reason is not like a property right (because ideas aren't like "stuff", economically, they are examples of non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods). The rights that a creator has are: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" (U.S. Constitution Art. I, Sec. 8) My understanding of the free culture movement is that this tradeoff of "limited times" has become, effectively, unlimited. Every time Micky is about to expire, congress re-extends his copyright for another twenty years or so. So then the problem is that we (meaning our culture), is getting the short end of the stick in this deal. I basically agree that if there were no limited monopoly on ideas (like patents) then, for certain individuals, they just wouldn't be bothered to try and bring it to market; that's bad, I don't think anyone really wants that (even though they may think they want it). But the question is very much open as to what 'limited' means in this context.