Copyright is the opposite of property rights

Rick Falkvinge: 

It is quite possible to argue for the copyright monopoly from a purely utilitarian, protectionist, or mercantilist perspective, but not from a “property is good” perspective: you will end up in the exact opposite conclusion. By extension, since we know that property rights are good for trade, we also deduce that the copyright monopoly is bad for trade and competition. This comes as no surprise, seeing how the copyright industry has been fighting tooth and nail against the more-efficient industries that would otherwise already have replaced them

Copyright as it currently stands is a huge net negative for our societies.

Copyright, as well as any other intellectual property right, is not a god given right.

It is a temporary monopoly that society decided was in everybody's best interest to grant the creator of certain works, in order to encourage the creation of such works. It should only be granted to the extent that it has a net positive effect on such creation.

It does not exist to allow creators, or even "rights owners" to profit from a creation indefinitely. That was never the intent. The intent was only to encourage more creation, and encourage creators to share their creations freely, without fear of copycats.

Originally you had to apply, and it was for 7 years, extendable for another 7 years, for a total of 14. Time now moves a lot faster than it did then, so there's no reason that copyright terms should be longer than that today.

We have gotten so far away from that original intent. Intellectual property terms should be decided based on studies on their actual real-world effect on creativity, not based on any other criteria.