If there is a need for the added productivity afforded by such software, people with that need will pay to have that software made (or improved to meet the specifics of their needs).
Apache was made despite the fact that people weren't forced by arbitrary government rules to pay for their copy. Companies paid developers to improve on it because they needed those improvements. They invested time and effort in making the software better because it benefits them. I'm not even arguing that they be forced to contribute their changes either (though I like the open-source model and it can exist *specifically* because there is protection for credit, not from copying). They may decide to pay programmers internally to build better software that benefits only themselves. That's a bigger investment though and a larger gamble as it relies on secrecy but it may be a valid business decision. In such a case, you try to protect it with NDA or some such, not copyright.
Regarding novels, movies and albums, I'm saying that your business model should focus on being paid to do work if that is the reason you are performing that work for. A band should be paid to climb up on a stage and give a good show. Not sit on their ass while government enforces the fact that they played that show once and should get money every time someone listens to a recording of it. Writing more songs is an investment, it means that people who liked your first show might be keen to pay again to watch you perform to those new songs you worked came up with.
But regardless of the business model, performing art is first and foremost a way to express yourself, do it because you enjoy it, not to make money. If people like what you do, you'll make money and that's a great bonus. It may afford you more time to put on your art. If you're quite good, you may even make a living out of it. What I'm saying is that you aren't *entitled* to the bonus. You're entitled to the credit.
Of course we have great works that may (likely) have never existed were it not for copyrights. Exploiting a bad law to reach great results does not justify that result. The fact that Nike shoes are great does not justify them using child labour (which is/was legal where they do/did it). I'd give up on Hollywood's ability to make Transformers 6 for the sake of proper copyright law, wouldn't you? ;)