> First, copyright is not "ownership of information"

This is historically a very good point. Although I'm not versed in the specifics of legal jargon, it's hard to ignore that the practical enforcement of copyright laws in the U.S. seems to have skewed dangerously close to proprietary rights. Consequently, you've pointed us toward the real question: What would a world where copyright had a different meaning look like?

One must look at the history of copyright (or around the world) to appreciate how convoluted the evolution of its (subtle) meaning has been over the centuries.