alt Hacker NewsSome situation being the "entropic norm" that things tend to without intervention is not a good reason to prefer it. If we allowed everything that costs nonzero effort for the state to prohibit, we wouldn't have a civilization at all -- the ultimate "entropic norm" is pure anarchy.
So rather than arguing from these philosophical principles I think it makes more sense to answer a pragmatic and very concrete question: is the world would be better off, or worse, for having intellectual property protections? I think it's clearly better because the existence of these protections encourages people to spend time and effort making creative works (including software). That said; I think software patents are counter-productive, as are extremely long copyright protections for software. But I think that for pragmatic reasons, not abstract ones that seem to fall apart when you examine them closely.
Ultimately you end up in an abstract or values based discussion either way though.
Your question, is the world better off, is impossible to answer in a manner that isn't based in conjecture I feel. Would people not feel the urge to create with a 20 year copyright term? 7 years? 90? zero? Aren't some of the most valuable pieces of software in terms of social good open source? What drives the creation of those?
The closest we have to a counterfactual of the current US based intellectual property hegemony is probably China, who are renowned for their lack of scruples in this matter. Isn't some part of their supercharged technical progress based off willingness to ignore IP? How much? Is California's ban on non competes partially responsible for it's innovative tech sector?
These are all fuzzy questions that are difficult to answer and you end up approaching them with values judgements in mind.
So to restate mine without that controversial phrase; the more people that can access and share information and knowledge the more we unlock the possibility of progress and improvement for the greatest number of people.