Personally I don't have an issue with individual intellectual property, it's the acquisition and trade of it by corporations that I have an issue with. For example, I believe no copyright should last after the creator's death. Disney is dead, Tolkien is dead, many musicians are dead, let alive creators contribute to their worlds.

I do believe that.

Intellectual property leads to all kind of unfairness. It should be normalized that artist would be paid for the work done, nor for property ownership.

This adds to some other believes about people shouldn't be paid just for "property ownership".

And once the art is done and released is part of human race, that does include terrible human beings, but it also includes absolutely everyone else.

Some other argument for this... For instance, being an artist is one of the jobs with biggest pay disparity, from the poorest of them all to some of the richest. That's a normal output of basing income on property ownership, things snowball once you have enough property.

I don't think there's a way to make private property (physical or intelectual) work in a fair economy. And remember, private property is not the same as personal property, just in case.

I do think the world of art would get much better and more diverse if we got rid of property as a way to measure revenue and put work in the center as a way to measure how much we should pay each artist.

Intellectual property is a means of production after its released. It requires no further input from the creator, and so they shouldnt have a monopoly over it.

If the internet actually enforced copyright to the letter of the law, it wouldnt exist in its current form. No memes, no game streamers or videogame youtubers, no unlicensed music, no image sharing. Copyright needs to be defended to the best of the holders ability otherwise they lose it. It would necessitate a constant stream of scanning and policing and litigation thatd be so taxing on platforms theyd just shut down. Video game streaming operates in a legal grey zone because the law is flawed.

Theres a reason programming tools are almost all open source. From languages to libraries to software, the alternative is just too inefficient.

Copyright is an old shitty system from the days when books required publishers who had to register an ISBN for everything they published. The modern equivalent would be if every unique copyrightable contribution on the internet first required submitting the media to a government agency to store a hash of it and issue a UUID.

I wouldnt say that IP doesnt exist, but once you share information with someone, they are now also a holder of that IP, just by the nature of reality.

To answer your first question no.

Intellectual property is a societal construct and it is as real as racism is. Which isn't saying much.

If an artist doesn't want their music to be heard and possibly replicated, altered, or used in a way they don't like then it is their responsibility to never release it. Only by hiding it can they keep the world from misusing it.

I also believe all intellectual property laws shouldn't exist, so patent, copyright, and trademark.

Artists and creators already don’t control their intellectual property. The megacorporations do, and they have always violated the intellectual property rights of small artists with little to no consequences.

Intellectual property laws are a recent and catastrophic mistake. For the majority of the history of our species, no one could retain sole ownership of art. And it was better. We make the best art when we trade it back & forth and reiterate on it.

We should scrap intellectual property laws, and heavily tax corporate AI use to fund a national artists stipend to provide them a good standard of living.