I made a similar point in my article There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent. In fact there is no evidence to substantiate the utilitarian claim that IP is necessary for innovation or that it even generates net innovation and creativity. There is no doubt that patent and copyright distort and skew the innovation and creativity that occurs–some types of creativity are suppressed, others are incentivized. Even if IP does generate net creativity and innovation (even if you ignore the skewing and distorting), there is no proof that it’s worth *other* costs of the patent and copyright systems. See http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/. And there are unending cases of clear abuse, waste, or injustice: see http://blog.mises.org/11600/the-patent-copyright-trademark-and-trade-secret-horror-files/. The cost is immense and real: http://blog.mises.org/7223/what-are-the-costs-of-the-patent-system/.
There are principled, moral reasons to oppose patent and copyright: see my article The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide. For those who advocate a copyright system on utilitarian grounds, the onus is on them, and they have not satisfied it.
The law students are told that we have to find the right balance–the assumption is that we need *some* copyright law, even if the balance has gone “too far”. But this assumption itself is unjustified: there is no reason to think that ANY copyright law at all is justified. In fact, it is not and should be abolished.