But the first two were the natural state before the invention of those legal fictions. There is certainly material to work from.
True, but it wasn't generally a very pretty state. For #1,well, look at all the Da Vinci drawings. They all had mistakes in them because he knew people would steal it and try to build it.
For #2, what happened was the US was the biggest pirate around because copyrights were enforced on a country level. Prior to that, well, books were only for the wealthy and scholars - most people didn't read or were illiterate so it didn't really matter to begin with.
Of course, your real point is software, for which we have absolutely no historical data to deal with. Software is a very different form of IP that we've contorted into existing IP frameworks, and it fits badly.
Copyrights are meant to protect creative works which generally until computers were around, generally enjoyed by other living things. You didn't write a poem for your toaster, for example, at least not for the enjoyment of your toaster.
Likewise, patents were to protect things. Your toaster might have some interesting feature that's patented, That thing isn't for enjoyment, it's for utility.
There is another category of patents called design patents which are used to highlight certain aesthetic features something might have. Do not confuse these with regular utility patents for the only similarities they have is the work "patent".
Of course, software comes around and messes it up - for now we're creating works meant to be "enjoyed" by a machine. Or those creative works are for utility. So now we've got this new category of IP that we believe should fit on both domains, but that just means it's a new form of IP since neither copyrights nor patents adequately cover it. (For starters, no one work should be coverable by both patents and copyright since the intent of both are different. The fact software can means the system is broken at handling that kind of IP.