No, you suggested this out of nothing. It actually suggests the opposite, because protecting "intellectual property" takes away the freedom from other people to create it themselves as if they are somehow less deserving of something they created because they weren't the first ones to get that protection.
The lines what is really counts as "independent" are deeply blurred.
Every piece of property must be improved by labor in some way. That is how property is created in the first place: homesteading involves investing your labor into untouched land to own it, as one example.
The initial labor is what creates the property. It can then be traded and whatnot. But it was not property before the initial labor that transformed wild land to something useful.
> Land property is not created by laboring on it, in fact it was always there.
There is much untouched land on the moon. Who owns that?
Land exists before improvement, but it is not property until improved through labor by people. That's just how the property rights on which our civilization is based work.
Intellectual properties are generally more creative based endeavors and should be protected as such IMO
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moon_Treaty&oldid...
Property is created when someone uses force to claim ownership of something. That's it. Anything else is post-hoc justification for said claim. You can indeed own that untouched forest if you can hold it with force. That's the ultimate basis of property, no matter how libertarians try to mask it: the imposition of force on the existing natural world to create artificial division of ownership.
There is no particular reason we should believe that if Harry Potter did not exist, there would be nothing similar enough to Harry Potter to serve as close substitute. Kids could have gone nuts for Barry Brassgears, the steampunk airship cabin-boy that ultimately grows in knowledge and ability to defeat Max Clanks, the industrialist bent on clearing the skies of all independent captains. Or maybe they could have latched on to Sirene Ceta, the young mermaid adventuress who stumbles into a scheme by landswoman Gail Greywave to seize control over the Pacific salmon runs, and foils it. I just made these up, but anyone can write an automated generator to spit out these pitches.
Without the copyright-based business, the type and the quality of the popular stories change, but they still get written. The problem becomes discoverability, because it is harder to make money by promoting someone else's work. More promotion creates more copies, but you can no longer monetize the copies directly. You only have author goodwill and branding to work with.
That’s one difference, sure. But another difference is that intellectual property must be created by people, while other kinds of property often are created naturally. Somebody had to make Harry Potter. My yard was just there naturally. Why shouldn’t the property right in Harry Potter be stronger than that for land? Why is one kind of difference dispositive and the other not?