I'll include a few quotes which led me to make my statement:

"In one recent case, the inventor of a new way to calculate a number
representing
the shortest path between two points—an extremely useful technique—was
not given patent protection
because this was “merely” a mathematical algorithm.47
But it is arbitrary and unfair to reward more practical inventors and
entertainment providers, such as the engineer
and songwriter, and to leave more theoretical science and math
researchers and philosophers unrewarded. The
distinction is inherently vague, arbitrary, and unjust."

Yeah, IP is not about copyright only, it is about patents as well. He is referring to the
arbitrary nature of those laws, when they "reward" one thing but not another.
So it is not about music per se, it is about the idea of IP itself.

"For example, your taking my lawnmower would not really deprive me of it
if I could conjure up another in the blink
of an eye. Lawnmower-taking in these circumstances would not be “theft.”
Property rights are not applicable to things
of infinite abundance, because there cannot be conflict over such things.
Thus, property rights must have objective, discernible borders, and must
be allocated in accordance with the first occupier
homesteading rule. Moreover, property rights can apply only to scarce
resources"

I'm still reading and absorbing. I am at odds with his stance in regards
to even infinite resources (or abundant resources) in certain
circumstances. For instance, if I were in a region with VAST amounts of
uninhabited space, and I decided to set up my camp in one certain
location, and "stake my claim," I would have a problem with someone else
coming along, kicking me off, and taking over my "claim," even though it
would be possible for me to simply move and find another area to settle
on. If a person took over my original area, they would be operating
under the assumption that they had a superior right to that specific plot.

This is a delicate moment. Things is, as soon as you set up a camp, a camp becomes
a finite resource. And now it can be taken away.

Now, imagine if, at the moment you set a camp, anyone can come over and just copy it
and it can be done infinitely. Would conflict be possible?

Also, bodies are scarce resources. And so anything involving bodies would have grounds
for conflict. Imagine a land of paradise where everything is super-abundant. But you would
still have conflicts, since you have only one body and you have a limited resource called
"time". And so even in paradise some property rules would get established concerning bodies.

But it is a huge topic and challenging. I think you took the correct approach to absorb it and
think it over.