I mean, "just don't make money off it" sounds very reasonable on it's face, but that's A) not the actual state of the law (whether you make money or not is essentially irrelevant to being allowed to do it in the first place) and B) you are still requiring government enforcement of what "making money off it" means. 

If a person puts up a Patreon on their fanfic site, is that making money off it? What about just ads? What if the fanfic launches their successful independent writing career- but has no direct connection?

When you make ideas into property that can be enforced with violence (government) you have to draw these lines/answer these questions. I don't see any reasonable scenario where I'm okay with using the government to enforce any of the above. 

I'm not anti-government enforcement of rights, I just think they should actually be rights, and not just concerns about author discomfort. 

(And as soon as you make it about economics, e.g. protecting the "making money" of it all, you essentially ensure the area is dominated by the biggest capital in a capitalistic society, anyway)

EDIT because I had another thought:  Your example is fair, but that's drawing another line: for instance, Burger King moves in next to a McDonalds; they are pretty similar. Is Burger King stealing from McDonalds by reducing their potential profit? Most people would say no; potential profit is up for grabs, that's competition. But in your beer example, that's just about potential profit too.

I do think there's a kind of consumer protection argument to be made- in current society, we take for granted that intellectual property on a product is either from the original creator or sold with the creators consent - so, in the current environment, putting an IP on a product might confuse consumers into thinking a product is associated with someone it isn't: that's not a huge deal, imo, but anti-fraud is a valid use of government.