So, your argument is that, "how a licensed work is used, broadcast, or performed" is different than real property? I agree. We shouldn't afford any of the righ

So, your argument is that, "how a licensed work is used, broadcast, or performed" is different than real property? I agree. We shouldn't afford any of the rights we do to 'intellectual property' that we do to real property. Your argument is completely derived from that of the intellectual property owners (aka rentiers). My argument is that innovation and creativity will continue with very minimal intellectual property protections. Edit: Therefore, intellectual property protections are useless in the intent: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;…"