Charging for information is acceptable as it will lead to more and better information. Good journalism cost money, and incentives matter.
Copyright should be very short lived though.
Discussion
Devil's advocate: Why should a person who discovered some information ever lose their copyright on that information? And how long should the copyright last? If you spend 20 years of your life to discover some piece of information that creates real change in the world, why should the benefit of your blood, sweat and tears be limited in time?
Why should a person who discovered some information ever lose their copyright on that information?
Because it produce better societal outcomes if they do.
If you spend 20 years of your life to discover some piece of information that creates real change in the world, why should the benefit of your blood, sweat and tears be limited in time?
(This is based on my morals so your milage may vary)
The economy exist to produce goods (including information) for consumers. The only consideration when constructing incentives is optimizing for the consumers.
And how long should the copyright last?
Just long enough so that the value of produced information covers the cost of production and a risk adjusted profit.
This is highly sector specific and might change over time.
One thing to note is that given constant revenue from the information, doubling the copyright does not actually double the vale of the information as future cashflows are discounted with the risk free rate. The societal cost of not having that information free double.