People should start to distinguish between "Intellectual Property" and "Intellectual Property Rights". IP is not "owned" in the same way that tangible property

People should start to distinguish between "Intellectual Property" and "Intellectual Property Rights". IP is not "owned" in the same way that tangible property or intangible assets like goodwill. What is "owned" is the rights to exploit the intellectual property. These ownership "rights" are granted by the state (US Constitution or in other countries, statute). What is being debated is whether those IPRs (which can only be licensed or sold outright) can be extended to cover the end user's use of the product that contains the IP. The DMCA doesn't say you can't do what you like to the product, it says you can't circumvent "locks" on the IP that enforce the licensor's IPR. That's a very contentious position and is inherently anti-competitive and anti-innovation. IPRs are provided by the State for specific purposes. Extending those rights beyond those purposes should be ruled either unconstitutional or against the best interests of society.