The fact that the term intellectual property has become generally accepted is, IMO, already conceding too much to rights-holders. Disney does not (and should n

The fact that the term intellectual property has become generally accepted is, IMO, already conceding too much to rights-holders. Disney does not (and should not) have complete control over its copyrighted works. This is also not limited to corporations; read almost any statement from e.g. the Authors Guild, and see there is an underlying assumption that long-term control over all aspects of one's creations is not a policy decision, but a moral axiom. If you really want to include the process in your determination of what is art, then what about independent films created as labors of love that have the rights purchased by a corporation? Do those cease to be artistic achievements when the corporation buys the rights? To be clear: I think we should have a robust copyright system, but what we have now is an absurd overkill and actively harmful towards encouraging creation of interesting new works.