There's a big difference between no-one owning anything, and no-one owning intellectual property. The issue of whether non-rival goods can be placed in the same category as goods that are decreased in availability as more people gain access to them is a big one.
Intellectual property laws are not fundamentally necessary. A lot of arguments can be made over whether humanity would be better or worse off if intellectual property was universally respected and obeyed, but that debate is largely beside the point. Intellectual property is not treated in a manner similar to physical property, and cannot be expected to be treated more like physical property in the future. As such, intellectual property is a pipe dream.
It's true that people like weaving realities that are convenient to themselves. Teachers try to take credit for everything their students come up with, politicians think the economy is entirely based on their actions, the military thinks they're the greatest people who ever lived, etc. Of course, people with less stake in the legal codes relating to intellectual property will be more opposed to intellectual property than those who have invested heavily in acquiring intellectual property. Thinking that human thought is unbiased is a dangerous misstep. However, for the same reasons, it's unreasonable to condemn those who see the world from different vantage points. Most of the wars America engages in are unnecessary, but America's military is one of the most important parts of the government. Politics is unimportant compared to science, but having good legal codes can make a huge difference in day to day welfare. Genius can succeed just fine without any education, but people still learn best from others. In summary, people glorify their own positions and condemn those who oppose them, but the truth tends to be much more calm, and often the most important things aren't whose right or wrong, but simply the question of what is practical.
Intellectual property is dying. Not only does every new technology make it harder to enforce, but the general public is unwilling to lose access to the conveniences they have obtained from bypassing intellectual property. The problem is that as intellectual property dies, the instruments that we have relied on to reward profits to our artists dies with them.
However, there comes a time when pondering about the problem is useless, and it is better to think about the solution. Namely, how to profitably produce high quality art in an environment wherein the art can't be owned. Investing in new ways to turn back the clock is a futile endeavor at best.
This is why I view "victories" in the war on piracy as sad events wherein only lawyers win. Pirates are just normal people, and are certainly not worse than say, the average teacher who doesn't deserve the job and is effectively living off government welfare. Randomly punishing pirates doesn't discourage piracy- and it can't be expected to do so when getting punished for piracy is much less likely than being hit by lightning while mountain climbing. Therefore, all that remains is that random normal people are hurt, while some of the smartest members of society waste their time redistributing wealth to themselves without producing anything. I don't want lawyers to make money, because that encourages people to become lawyers- smart people who could have become scientists, programmers or doctors. As such, it's best to eliminate anything that causes lawyers to make profits, whenever possible.
