This post lacks counterfactual reasoning. The question around IP law isn't if it's possible for creative work to be created without it, which is obviously true, but what creative works would be created (and what creative works would not be created) if IP law didn't exist.
Is your claim that the set of creative works we have today would exist in full without IP law? Because that is a bold claim, and rather easily refutable through any single example where a company's primary competitive advantage hinges upon IP rights. Potential examples abound.
You can argue that the tradeoffs in IP law are not good tradeoffs. But your post seems to think that there would be no tradeoff -- that simply we'd get all the benefits conferred to society (in the form of creative works), with none of the downsides, if we eliminated IP protections. The burden of proof is on you for that one, since I'm sure if you surveyed any company relying upon IP protections in any non-trivial way, they'd indicate that capital would have been allocated elsewhere if not for those protections.
Is your claim that the set of creative works we have today would exist in full without IP law? Because that is a bold claim, and rather easily refutable through any single example where a company's primary competitive advantage hinges upon IP rights. Potential examples abound.
You can argue that the tradeoffs in IP law are not good tradeoffs. But your post seems to think that there would be no tradeoff -- that simply we'd get all the benefits conferred to society (in the form of creative works), with none of the downsides, if we eliminated IP protections. The burden of proof is on you for that one, since I'm sure if you surveyed any company relying upon IP protections in any non-trivial way, they'd indicate that capital would have been allocated elsewhere if not for those protections.