[tzs]

> The ability to freely copy other people's work lowers the barrier to entry, so eliminating IP laws would spur a creative renaissance

You lost me. What would being able to freely copy lower the barrier to entry of? How would it spur a creative renaissance?

[literalusername]

To use software as an example, it's much easier to improve upon someone else's work when their work is open source. You fork it and improve it -- much easier than building it from scratch. This process also aids in learning how to write good software, by becoming familiar with other people's techniques.

On the other hand, if you're afraid that using someone else's work can result in a huge fine, then you're less likely to do the project at all. If you choose to do it anyway, you'll have a lot more work to do. There is a higher barrier to entry.

[tzs]

Software doesn't really make your point, because eliminating copyright would not make all software open source. In fact, it would most likely cause a shift toward closed source as companies could take open source and use it in closed products without having to release their modified source.

[literalusername]

As much as I want to refute this, I have to admit you have a good point.

[njs12345]

Mashup artists, for example, would be able to use a much greater variety of samples if IP laws were less restrictive.