Well some would do it that way. But consider the possibility of cooperation instead of competition. Completely non-crippled software exists today already (open source). Crippling your software to make it scarce means it has to beat the competition by a larger margin. People must decide if the inconvenience is worth it. There’s also the risk of a culture that detests crippling develops that “frees” your software, despite attempts at crippling (e.g. cracking games).
Also, societies unwilling to accept the zero-cost of copying will still have piracy, but at a cost of less trust in the legal system.
Not to mention societies embracing “piracy” would have to divert less resources to discussing it...
A society that has a norm of honoring (creator-desired) exclusivity in creators’ informational creations (i.e. location of narrow, high-value targets within designspace), will be able to use both modes of creation—those that do and do not expect exclusivity (and its resultant monetary or aesthetic returns).
Certainly, the society without anti-piracy social norms can use the method you have labeled cooperative, but so can the one with strong anti-piracy norms. However, the former is cut off from finding the targets that actually do need a monetary incentive to motivate their discovery.
In much the same way, societies with a strong norms against monetary profit (esp in the production of physical goods such as food) can still engage in “communal” production but run up against strong barriers to producing advanced economy goods that require extensive specialization and concentrated risk-taking.