You’ve accepted the dubious notion that a government granted monopoly is “property”. Just because rent-seekers call it “intellectual property” and try to confuse us by conflating the reuse of previously developed technology, the quoting of melodic lines, the black-market in digital good of “piracy” and the theft of credit and honor which is what is actually stolen in plagiarism in the phrase “theft of intellectual property” does not make it so.
I suppose you think the world would be a better place if Ralph Vaughn Williams had either never composed Fantasia on the Theme of Thomas Tallis because he couldn’t secure permission to use the theme from whatever corporation held the perpetual rights, or had to pay royalties on the melodic line (ditto for Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini). Maybe we mathematicians should let our discipline grind to a halt by insisting on royalties for use of our theorems, and just to make sure, give that right to our heirs in perpetuity.
And even if you don’t care about music or mathematics (or literature, no Stoppard “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead” — the Shakespeare estate wouldn’t release the rights to the characters), have you considered what a dead-weight on the economy all the monopoly rents being paid to the estates or corporations holding rights to old inventions would create, not just in terms of the monies paid, but the cost of maintaining the rights-holding infrastructure in perpetuity? How much should we all be paying the estate of Nikolaus Otto for our car’s engine?
Copyright and patents d*mned well better not really be property, and exercisable in perpetuity because if they are, the world economy (to say nothing of culture) will grind to a halt, and we all descend into a sort of feudalism with copyright and patent lawyers as our overlords.
The nature of human creations and the marketplace could stand refinement. I have no problem with Disney and affiliates retaining rights to “Mickey Mouse” in perpetuity. Others ought to be allowed to make use of Mickey without asking for cash. I do have a problem with mathematicians charging a fee for use of their creations/formulas, but believe their published works ought to be subject to remuneration indefinitely.
What you call “grind to a halt” would make for a good fantasy. Stop whining and write a novel about it. Copyright law merely regulates ideas as they are brought to market. The onus of enforcement is a two way street. Walt won’t come to your home and sue if your lady sews up a Mickey Mouse pillow for your weary head and charges you $5.00 and a night out for the effort.
What I hear from the detractors of copyright law is a thin whine called “That’s not fair!” There isn’t a fiddle small enough to express my sympathy.