I've seen remixers that "take other's expressions, rearrange and call them their own" and make stuff from a totally different and new sound-world, and I've seen musicians that start from scratch and make totally generic stuff with nothing new. And it also happens the other way round. This is not about what technique is used but about how much creativity is put into rearranging and transforming the building blocks of the past.
Basically the scientists at universities do the research. The scientists at universities do the peer review. Then the publishers sell the books to the universities.
Is it me or the publishers could be taken out of the equation completely? The money spent by universities on buying the journals could pay for the peer review, pay for the online hosting of all the publications (to give free access to other universities) and to fund more research!
The problem is when all IP is lumped together in one senseless mega-category. The folks who defend the anti-competitive and censorship-happy effects of patent and copyright always take advantage of this misconception.
Trademark, geographical indication signs and proper authorship attribution protect customers from being victims of a fraud and companies and artists from someone else abusing their hard-earned reputation.