To say that is to revolt against markets in all other parts of it, too. Markets tend to eradicate profits; yet people, for a reason, tend to still seek those profits. When you take your argument to its logical conclusion, the question is this, why do people ever try to seek profits; for they will just tend to get eradicated. For example, if I notice a gap between the supply and demand of oil in a region, as an oil producer, seller, or whatever, I will try to sell in that region to make huge profits. But, if I do that, other people will ‘steal’ my idea and start selling in that area and get rid of my profits. So why should I even bother? Why do people ever seek to improve their efficiency, considering the other manufacturers will just ‘steal’ their ideas and increase their own efficiency, too? The argument that you are using applies to every situation in which people are seeking profit; yet you, and other people, use it only with what copyrights, patents, and whatever already protect simply because those are the things that are possible to do that with. How would people enforce such things in situations in which people, as entrepreneurs, are seeing gaps in demand and trying to fill them just by shipping things to different locations or something?
My knowledge of economics is pretty weak; so try to bear with me and fill in what I am missing. But I think that this is a pretty important argument. I see no reason why your argument does not apply to any seeking of profit whatever; for markets always tend to try to remove profits. Again, why should any person employ their ideas to find opportunities to make profits if it is inevitable that other people will just follow along, ‘steal’ their ideas, and eradicate their huge profits without trying as hard? Why should any one want to be the first person to improve their efficiency if they can just wait for an other person to do that and then follow suit, without wasting all of their time and money doing research?