But that's precisely the problem—while in theory the ideal is good, it is impractical unless you fundamentally change the economic model.

Artists rely on some form of IP to help secure payment for their creative works. They need this payment to be able to afford their own subsistence so that they can continue to live and create.

In an alternative system, maybe you could abolish all forms of IP outright, but how will you do that under capitalism while sustaining (already impoverished) artists?

If you are against the principle of IP, you are essentially saying that an entire segment of capital should be deactivated, and effectively the only jobs remaining would be those of active service/tangible goods. In the age of digital media, basically everything is instantly and infinitely replicable, so you are effectively asking for a world in which it becomes rapidly impossible to make money off of any kind of digital good (music, literature, film, software, etc.) This has an obvious material consequence of disincentivizing creation of these works simply because if the creators need to earn wages in tangible good/service markets they have strictly less time to devote to the creation of creative works.

>In the age of digital media, basically everything is instantly and infinitely replicable, so you are effectively asking for a world in which it becomes rapidly impossible to make money off of any kind of digital good (music, literature, film, software, etc.)

Plainly false. YouTube clearly proves this wrong. You can be funded by your fans.

Besides, if you are a musician and get just tens of thousands of plays on Spotify you are basically not making any money of it. Only extremely few artists make any kind of money of the copyright of their songs. Already distribution rights are near worthless.

Again. I am not opposed to IP rights because of what artists want or do not want.