It's true that cyberspace and other recent developments are challenging our copyright laws and frameworks for protecting intellectual property. The answer, though, is not to scrap existing statutes and principles. Instead, we must update old laws and interpretations so that information receives roughly the same protection it did in the context of old media. The goal is the same: to give authors sufficient control over their work so that they have an incentive to create, while maintaining the right of the public to make fair use of that information. In neither context does information want "to be free." Rather, it needs to be protected.
What I think this misses is that the progress of technology has it made impossible to go back to the status quo 40 years ago. Copyright seems like a reasonable middle-ground if works are mostly published on physical media which you can own, play whenever you want or even sell of give away - but which are relatively rarely copied.
In today's world, that option is gone - instead, we have two opposite extremes:
One is anarchy, in which a popular work will almost instantly be pirated and distributed all across the world
The other is DRM and complete control, in which the consumer does not own anything except an ephemeral license to consume a work. But the rights-holder can suddenly control exactly who may consume the work, when, how often, under which circumstances, what the may or may not otherwise do with the work, etc - and all those circumstances may change at a moment's notice. In extreme cases, the rights-holder may even revoke the license and effectively erase all copies of their work at once.