I'm not, at all. aeon_ai's original point was "Intellectual property is a myth, as any hacker knows. A world where AI can solve diseases easily, and corporations can find ways to claim ownership over those novel solutions, is not one where we should be encouraging stronger IP laws."
So what I did was mount a straightforward, easy defence of the simplest form of intellectual property, and observe that his concerns about disease cure ownership could be addressed by targeted changes, and not by a world where "intellectual property" is written off as myth.
> Also, would we have something more advanced than PCs by now if we weren't hindered by unnatural "ownership" of thoughts?
No? Why on earth would you think this? Intellectual property protection is the way that you get people to invest in the development of ideas. Almost no groundbreaking ideas in the industrial revolution or later would have happened if their subsequent monetisation was not protected.
It also explicitly doesn't grant "ownership" of thoughts or ideas.
One can make all sorts of arguments that software patents are bad (mostly I think they are), that copyright durations are too long or grant undue protection (I think it's possible that the total protection window is now too long) and that copyright extension law was bogus (most of it was).
But the legal construct of intellectual property is why we have the progress we have already. Will it need changing going forward? If it survives at all, yes.
But if intellectual property does not survive then the alternative is corporate thuggishness of an unimaginable kind.