> The hard discussion is about what is acceptable

What if we just say "both"? Libraries were a thing for millenia and writers still wrote books. There are costs to IP laws and the benefits aren't obvious.

> This type of argument always distracts from the fact that figuring out where we draw the line between theft and reimagining.

This seems to be missing a word, could you clarify?

Also: since you mentioned theft: this actually comes down to the discussion whether you can own thought and/or digital artifacts which can be replicated without taking anything away from the "owner".

Given the absolute choice I'd rather pick complete freedom than restriction. I suspect that anyone's opinion on this follows what they value higher: creation or exploitation.

There are many differences between those acts of thievery or inspired creation however you might call it. But there are many similarities too. Fascination with the original is one. Desire to own it in one way or another is one too. Differences are in the skills, the means, the result, what was stolen and financial success that came out of the act.