Your go-to source argues that the point of copyright and patent monopolies is actually to incentivize innovation, which conflicts with your own claim that the purpose of copyright and patent monopolies is not to incentivize innovation:

> > Intellectual property rights are an exception to that norm, and they are granted only when – and only to the extent that – they are necessary to encourage invention.

Meanwhile, you have not offered an alternative justification for copyright monoplies, as far as I've noticed.

edit: It's also notable that a major purpose of Lemley's paper is to debunk the notion that there is any meaningful "free rider problem" in the world of patentable and copyrightable, but you claim a "free rider problem" is a major incentive to keep copyright and patent law.

Interesting paper, although the author disagrees with that interpretation pretty heavily. I suppose the issue isn't as clear cut as I thought.