The problem is: People thinking that (IP) Intellectual Property has anything to do with property. It does NOT. No one OWNS ideas like they own a suit or a computer!
Time ago (1600s) the justification was: people invested resources figuring out something, so now they need some kind of protection to profit from that investment. It was flawed thinking still, but at least it had a pass. You were granted monopoly status for a few years, 10 -14 years, to profit from your efforts and that’s all.
But in modern times the thinking morphed into IP like a Property Title. Like I own a pair of shoes. I will own this thing until I die, and then I will pass it to my heirs! I can sell it, I can lease it, whatever. Which is BEYOND RETARDED.
The thing is: ideas are not actual MATERIAL things! ideas are NOT SCARCE! People define/establish property over MATERIAL things to avoid conflict. Because MATERIAL things are SCARCE. They are exclusionary, their use by one person precludes their use by others. You want to sit on this chair, I want to sit on this chair, we better figure out who the owner is, otherwise we will have to fight over the chair. People try to avoid those fights that’s why Property is defined over SCARCE resources.
Ideas are NOT scarce. I thinking on some idea does not precludes you of thinking in exactly the same thing. I knowing the secret receipt of CocaCola does not impedes CocaCola in using the exact same receipt. I reproducing some artist’s song in my PC doesn’t stop that artist from singing that song anywhere else. Or watching a movie in my PC doesn’t stop Paramount Pictures from showing the exact same picture in some theatre.
For those who doesn’t see the logical argument, but still focus on the emotional “Oh, but that’s not fair! Paramount spent so many millions making that film”. Well, at least that would bring us back to the initial intent. We grant those people a FEW short years of monopoly status to make up for PART (not each and every idea has to always make money) of the money invested, and then off they go on their own.
Or better yet, take a much logical approach and apply Contract Law. People interchanging the idea agree to be bounded by a contract. Apart from exposing the idiotic rules that apply nowadays, if you want to see this movie you have to agree not to show this movie to anyone else, you cannot write (e.g. a book) about the things you see in the movie, you cannot replay the scenes of the movie, you cannot recreate the art of the movie, and on and on and on… for the next 100 YEARS!!!
Apart from that, at least Contract Law won’t bind third unconsenting parties. Things like: “- I did not now, nor interact with that inventor, I invent this by myself. - So sorry, he ran first to the Patent Office… womp womp /trollface”, won’t happen.
What a long post, if you are still interested in this approach read Stephan Kinsella (www.stephankinsella.com). He is an IP lawyer who enlighten me on these issues.