Your scathing critique is requested.
No critique warranted. I agree with you.
To say that something is "property" is to say that no one else but the owner can have or use it unless the owner decides they can. But this is necessarily a legal concept, because even in the case of physical property like a chair, anyone can acquire the chair by stealing it. Nothing within the chair itself says that it belongs to the owner. That's a societal decision, which makes the whole notion of property abstract. To say that a physical object is "property" is really to say that we as a society will *treat* it as "property". And clearly, things like songs and movies can be treated as property. All that's missing in the case of intellectual property is one of the justifications for property, namely that because taking away property from its owner deprives them of the ability to use it, it shouldn't be allowed. But it also deprives them of the ability to sell it, just like in the case of abstract ideas such as songs and movies.
The concern here isn't whether the concept of property is abstract. The concern is whether the abstract should be extended to abstracts themselves (i.e. patents, copyrights, and trademarks.) Property is a device that resolves disputes over scarce resources; and "intellectual property" is nothing of the sort. It is abundant. Another concern is establishing theft. In order to establish theft, the property must be displaced denying its owner abusus and its usufruct. How does this occur when one, for example, downloads a song? Intellectual property law undermines itself in that its real purpose is to monopolize the capacity to rent intellectual content. It does not establish ownership. If that were the case, then once purchasing a song, for example, its owner (at least of that partitioned data which contains the song) should be able to do whatever he or she wants with it including uploading it to their computer and reproducing it so that others can listen. Denying that intellectual content can be alienated especially through purchase or willful trade while also denying your patrons the usufruct of the purchase is to deny said content is actual property.
"Intellectual property" as its currently legislated is a useless attempt to "own" access and distribution of intellectual content at all times. It's like selling museum tickets or "sponsoring" an animal in need.