As others have pointed out, the natural rights argument is off-putting. It’s also unnecessary.
Copyright is explicitly defined in law as a limited time monopoly granted by government.
Don’t use the word “property” or “intellectual property” or any property based argument in discussing copyright. Even using the term concedes the point. Copyright is not property, it is a limited government-granted monopoly. Stick to that definition and don’t give any credence to “intellectual property is property “. It isn’t. You can discuss all other aspects of impact of copyright without agreeing that it is property.
Copyright is explicitly defined in law as a limited time monopoly granted by government.
Don’t use the word “property” or “intellectual property” or any property based argument in discussing copyright. Even using the term concedes the point. Copyright is not property, it is a limited government-granted monopoly. Stick to that definition and don’t give any credence to “intellectual property is property “. It isn’t. You can discuss all other aspects of impact of copyright without agreeing that it is property.