[dalke]

The reason copyright exists is because the person who created X (a book, a play, etc) wanted to be paid. The US Constitution describes the reason for copyright as "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The question then is, if you allow people to copy "information", then do you reduce progress, because people don't get paid for their work? The answer to that may be 'no', but it isn't as simple as comparing information to bread.

You might be interested to know of Thomas Jefferson's writings on the topic (to have "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding ___ years but for no longer term and no other purpose." in the Bill of Rights) and Benjamin Franklin's on patents ("that as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously"). TJ was initially opposed to monopolies of any sort, but that changed over time.

I point this out to suggest that these utopian ideas you see have echos even back into the centuries.