I begin with the premise that when I make something -- software, music, a book, a table, an apple pie, anything -- I own that thing and all the rights entangled with it. No one has some kind of mystical right to use, borrow, copy, sell or eat what I make unless I say so. In effect, rights to the things I make come from me, not the universe.
Copyright, licensing, and all such schemes are, from my point of view, legal scaffolding erected, in principle, to protect my rights to the things I make, and to protect the exercise by others of the rights I transfer to them in one fashion or another.
These schemes, like all laws, are subject to distortion and abuse at the hands of power and money. That does not nullify my beginning premise, or the reason for the legal scaffolding in the first place. One does not attack gluttony by going after food.
Whether or not copyright, licensing, or any other scheme that is part of a so-called permission culture exist would have no real bearing on human behavior. People who create things would still want to protect what they see as their interests. The rich and powerful would still seek to distort the legislative process in their own interests. And, both groups would seek political allies to challenge the other. An absence of rules governing behavior does not mean the behavior goes away.