The power to prevent others from copying the arrangement is an incentive to arrange in the first place. But it should be limited. Property rights allow me to restrict your speech when your literally on my government sanctioned land. I don't see much difference when it comes to IP.

Edit: copyright should be more limited than physical property rights, so I'm in agreement. But neither can be absolute when the government only has a piece of paper to abide by that prevents them from being revoked.

There are exceptions to copyright to minimise the impact on free speech (satire, news for example). I guess people's opinions on this will ultimately come down to their views on free speech and that varies throughout the world.

The US Constitution does not recognize ideas as property. Copyrights and patents are limited-time incentives which may be granted by the government to encourage creativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Also, satire isn't protected, but parody is.

The US constitution does not effect me. Thanks for the correction on satire/parody, got them mixed up.

DMCA is pretty sloppy when it comes to separate copyright infringement from satire..