[mnd999]

The original purpose of copyright was to encourage people to create works. The theory being that of others can simply copy something where is the incentive to do it at all.

IMHO, there’s something in that for some classes of works, so I don’t think no-IP is a good idea universally. It’s certainly questionably for scientific papers though.

[eikenberry]

Copyright was done primarily to make money for distributors with the secondary effect being that they can then afford to pay the creators. The copyright compromise was that we would give up our right to copy in order to enable copies, that cost money to make and move, to be available. Take away the cost of copying and distributing and the primary reason for copyright disappears.

That leaves the secondary function of encouraging creation. But turns out creation is not 'original' as people thought and having others works freely available encourages new works much more than promises of monetary gains.

[jMyles]

I think it's very possible that this approach was historically important for promoting creativity, but I think it's more likely, on balance, to have the opposite effect as the internet matures.

[danuker]

Especially ones funded by public money.

[croes]

You mean initial claim, the purpose was always money.