Ideas and words are NOT property. They cannot be "owned". Any system that allowed otherwise would be a blatant attack on the freedom of speech. The framers of our Constitution (and the creators of our copyright laws) were keenly aware of this. In the words of Thomas Jefferson:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive
property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an
individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the
moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and
the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
...
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the
moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to
have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them,
like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any
point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being,
incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in
nature, be a subject of property.
What it does do is give you a financial monopoly. It gives you the exclusive right to publicly display your work, publicly perform it, distribute copies of it for money, etc. If that's all copyright law does, why was it created? Well, let's look at what life was like in the old days:
Let's say you were a brilliant author, and you just wrote a book. You would begin the laborious task of making copies of said book, and either selling them or distributing them to libraries, friends, etc. Then some rich guy who owned a printing press would find it, make a zillion copies, and you wouldn't get a dime.
Nothing was innately wrong with this, because one has no right to own or control an idea or speech. But from a utilitarian point of view this was a bad system, because nobody had any incentive to create works of art. And so for the sole purpose of incentivizing the creation of art, governments began the "embarrassment" (Jefferson's words, not mine) of restricting speech in order to give artists monopolies, rather than giving monopolies to the printing press. And I actually agree that the copyright system was a sensible thing to do.
However, the laws we have today are an absolute perversion. Copyright is meant to prevent businesses from profiting by ripping off artists. It was not meant to prevent individuals from sharing or enjoying art for free in the privacy of their own homes. But we're allowing big media companies to reframe the debate using misleading terms like "intellectual property", "piracy", and "theft". And we're allowing them to strip our rights away from us, not to promote the progress of science and the arts, but to line their pockets.
I am probably not in the minority in thinking that I own the fruits of my labor. If I raise some corn in my garden, I own it. I, and I alone, possess the right of disposal of that corn. Would you agree that the following factors would not change that:
(a) It's easy to steal. (There isn't a fence around it.) (b) It (seems) easy to make. (Just drop some seeds in ground.) (c) I sometimes give my corn away. (d) Other people sometimes give their corn away. (e) Some people can't grow corn but really like corn. (f) I have lots of corn. (g) Historically, people couldn't sell corn. (h) People who stole my corn liked it so much they told their friends and their friends bought my corn. (i) Growning corn is an outdated way to make a living in the 21st century.
Expansion on the above:
Suppose I create a cake recipes instead of corn. I can come to an agreement with someone else to control the distribution of that recipe. Anything from: "Here is my special recipe dear, please keep it in the family." to "In exchange for $X dollars you can use my recipe for a year."
How is stealing/copying my cake recipe by taking it from my kitchen any different than taking corn from my garden?
Notice that the above argument does not depend on patents, copyright or some definition of "intellectual property".