You're viewing a single thread.
Much of the concept of "intellectual property". Here's a good essay by Richard Stallman:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
Copyright by and large needs to be abolished. Patents in software are nonsensical, and elsewhere they should be drastically scaled back. Trademark is alright, with a few adjustments needed.
But all of the above is hiding behind a concept of "property" that just does not apply to intangible things, and we need to stop using that term to describe them.
I'm amenable to the idea of getting first dibs on an idea you came up with (software, hardware, fiction...), but it's been clearly abused to an insane degree by corporations who want to make a quick buck.
Yes, there are some theories why copyrights or trademarks might be good ideas.
Trademarks, for example, allow a company with a good reputation to avoid having their reputation be tarnished by someone imitating them but using lower quality goods. That seems reasonable. But, they're often abused so that a company can use their trademark to avoid having someone criticize them.
Copyright is the ridiculous one. Ok, maybe there's some bargain to be struck here. Maybe it actually does incentivize someone to create a work of art if they know they can control it for a short time. And, maybe the public benefits from that because that thing gets made, and (just as importantly) becomes part of the public domain in a reasonable time.
But, copyrights lasting a century? That's absurd. That slows down progress because it locks things out of the public domain until a point where they're no longer relevant. It disincentivize someone from creating something new, when they know they can milk the old one for decades instead.
Importantly though, none of these things is necessary for progress. The sistine chapel was painted without the benefit of copyright. AFAIK, there was no patent for the printing press. And the first things printed on it weren't protected by copyright.