I certainly prefer your definition of "free market" as one without IP, but it doesn't seem to be the definition that is proffered by the Main-Stream Media. I'm not arguing that you're correct, just that message we're being fed is that our economic success hinges on secure property rights, especially including IP (just pick up any issue of The Economist!).
I've even written that free access to information can benefit the most closed-informatio-access organizations: the government functions of military, security, and diplomacy.
Open Source Warfare
So I agree, restricting the use and access to information is certanly contra to the notion of "freedom," but it seems to be included in the "approved message" for how a free-market economy works. The providers of that message seem to enjoy trotting out quotes from the likes of Hayek or Mises when it suits them, while conveniently ignoring critical parts of their theories...
Economist Dean Baker reminds us of this often on his blog Beat The Press, see here and here.
In particular "free trade" agreements are everything but "free".
For example, if I remember well, 10 years ago the word "populism" meant politics appealling to simplistic way of social life (with lower taxes, less public involvement, or mpre nationalistic). Now this word is used in the media with exactly possitive meaning.
