I think the sort of IP market that existed prior to fast broadband and easily reproducible goods is a lot closer to a functioning market than wonky systems where all users of broadband are taxed and can 'spend' their taxes on things they don't consume, completely out of proportion to their actual costs to produce.
I'm not saying public subsidies should be off the table, just that this proposal and others I've seen don't seem to be as good as reforming the current system.
I think the type of market before IP protection when authors published serially and collected advances (e.g. Dostoyevsky, Dickens) was closer to a functioning market than the current system where authors, programmers, and pharmaceutical companies shoot their whole wads into the market and hope for a return on their sunk costs rather than attempting to actually sell their labor.
IP laws can be a net win for everyone. Let's leave the giants like MSFT be and use a simple example:
Dentist needs billing software. He's going to pay through the nose and face a free rider problem if he just pays some guy straight up to write it and release it under a liberal open source license. The software may not get written at all!
If, OTOH, the developer says he'll take a tenth of what it costs him to write it, and the dentist introduces him to 20 of his friends, the dentists all pay less than the labor costs, and the developer makes more money. And the software gets written.
Sure, simplified a lot, and ignoring various options, but you get the idea.
I'm not saying public subsidies should be off the table, just that this proposal and others I've seen don't seem to be as good as reforming the current system.