If you think deeper about it, the general concept of property is similarly ridiculous too. An arbitrary piece of land being ‘owned’ is similarly arbitrary human social concept, enforced by law and a registry

Music have no registry. It is much worse than land property

Maybe true, but one step at a time IMO.

If you're interested in reading about this sort of thing, some fun keywords are "enclosures", "Lockean Priviso", and "monopoly on violence".

I agree that it's an arbitrary social concept, but it's not ridiculous at all, deeper thought or not. I think it's completely reasonable to expect that my house is my house, and others aren't allowed to enter it or live on my property without my consent. If you think we all should live commune-style and have no property or physical privacy, that's certainly fair for you to believe, but the vast majority of the people in the world would staunchly disagree with you... hence the concept of property ownership.

Certainly there are issues with how we've implemented property ownership, but I don't think the concept itself is inherently flawed or ridiculous.

>Even the words "intellectual property" sound ridiculous together when you think about it.

For this reason, many would suggest not using it. It's a vague way of combining the separate issues of copyright, patents, and trademarks. It also illegitimately tries to equate those things to property, which changes how many feel about it.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Intellect...

Thank you for that information. In the future I'll direct my criticism more precisely. To clarify, it is mainly copyright laws I have a bone to pick with. Trademarks make sense. Patent laws sort of make sense in some circumstances, less in others.

As we get closer to Star Trek replicators, patent law begins to look similarly inapplicable.