Academic my arse. Market forces DO (buy and large) dictate the value of property, intangible or real.
Here's some more more-or-less "academic" economics 101 for you.
The value of something is what a buyer is prepared to pay for it, not the value the producer puts on it. The "tension" (oooh! non-academic word) between the supply, costs of production, the price, demand and the market value of goods are what drive economies, giving you your pampered existence and the luxury of coasting through life being an ignorant fuck troll.
Unlike Anonymous Coward here I would be more of the "social-engineer" persuasion - I don't think "socialist ideas always fail in practice" anymore than I think that market forces should govern every aspect of out lives. The strongest societies for me are social democracies, on the fine line between state tyranny and the regression into feudalism, gated communities and robber-barons precipitated by big players (mini states) in the tyranny of a market. I can accept a notion of "the common good", much like my capitalist countryman Adam Smith could.
Political persuasions notwithstanding, the monetisation of intellectual "property" takes place in a *market* - no way out of it and as has been repeatedly drilled into your skull, the market value of it is as near-as-fuck zero. If you don't think that the market should decide the value of it feel free to explain how wealth can be generated and collect your Nobel Prize at the door on the way out.
"Copyright" is an interference in the market that extends the old "patronage" reward scheme for creators to the general population - they are now your patrons, bound by law (not ethics!) to provide creators with *the opportunity* to market their creations for a certain amount of time, free from the obvious disadvantage of trying to sell a product of zero value. This *creates* an artificial market through coercion and it is the degree of this coercion that is at issue here. Most people would like creators of good content to be rewarded for their work - without copyright law many people would certainly still pay for content that they liked, but that is not a market - it is charity, so to enable a more-or-less predictable market we collectively have this "socialist" law that enables it.
Now to the problem. Entities with vested interests in intellectual "property" are so powerful that they have made *real* rights subservient to their imagined property "rights". They have extended the application of copyright in their own interests to the extent that every single piece of content they produce essentially never goes out of copyright - this fucks the market completely because in effect you have a glut of products of zero value given infinite value through coercion - they can be monetised indefinitely. Not only have they fucked the market, but they are extending copyright law into areas of our personal lives where they have no business being, trashing privacy rights, due process, freedom from arbitrary punishment , among other things - in the process enabling intrusive state surveillance from the proto-Stalinists in government.
You seem to be confused, or a simpleton, or both. If a product is to have monetary value, it must be traded in a market, the value of a product in a market is not set by the seller, but the price the buyer is willing to pay.