Digital goods like software and media can be copied for basically free. We know what the maximum prosperity of that looks like. It's when everyone can gets a free copy of whatever media or software they desire.

The state doesn't force busineses to go the route of making digital goods artefically scarce.

It is capitalism that incentivises this rent seeking behavior.

Capitalism is not a hypothetical unregulated free market. It is a system where an owner class of people allocate capital in order to extract more capital from the work of others. 

That system incentives a certain behaviour and it is not in any way efficient in allocating resources to maximize prosperity. And it is just undeniably obvious in the case of digital goods.

nostr:nevent1qqswl5l6phdn64x2thdfk4zg4mt40scc9dpguhegyzq4cnwang7r0hqpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsygy0gnzkzvdnvfngkrsph6x8rvj8sevchd50hyyul4u040astrws7qpsgqqqqqqs2qpgsm 

 this is still the state’s fault. 
here’s a similar case: pharmaceutical companies get a patent for a new drug that will last for x years, and acting in their own self-interest they exploit the fact that they can extend the patent with minor modifications to the drug. 
it’s a drug that could easily be produced at a low-cost by competitors. 

as you’ve noted, the state doesn’t force them to extend their patents, but there’s a clear incentive for them to do this. yet in a free-market, this is not possible and competitors would make the drug.
capitalism fixes this, but the state creates the problem. 

 The problem with our discourse I think is that we don't share the same definition for the word "capitalism".

You seem to use it as a place holder for "free market" where all the decissions arise from individuals, while I use the historical meaning including all the free market interference that come with that construct of human society.

The viability and capability of such a hypothetical free market is fascinating topic I may explore in the future. But it is simply not what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing against the free market.

You yourself seem to acknowledge that such a free market does not exist but you seem to attribute the reason for why it doesn't exist soley to the "state" perhapt whithout asking the question how the state got the idea to implement this IP and patent laws in the first place. 

 yeah i don’t believe in differentiation with terms like laissez-faire or free-market capitalism- that is what capitalism fundamentally is to me. 

but it is just an economic lens, and society is also much broader than that. 
i think the state’s size and scale comes from the momentum of the past- this should change. IP/patents are meaningful because of that, and i believe they mostly come about because of the same incentives we’ve both discussed- self-interested individuals can lobby for it. 
if the state is not as powerful, it doesn’t matter if that happens. 

 Well next time I write something you know that when I say capitalism I don't mean free market and that misunderstanding can be completely avoided. :-)