Pharmaceuticals and YouTube videos are not the same thing. Why must they be treated identically when it comes to intellectual "property" law? Doesn't it make

Pharmaceuticals and YouTube videos are not the same thing. Why must they be treated identically when it comes to intellectual "property" law? Doesn't it make much more sense to offer more protection and incentives to lifesaving medications than to trite clickbait and video game livestreams? Why are we conflating the value of those two? Since we're not starting from a principled approach that acknowledges that nobody can "own" an idea, and instead going with a consequentialist approach - what are the horrific, severe consequences of not giving a few pennies in ad revenue to someone uploading a compilation video of other people's work that justify treating that the EXACT same way we treat lifesaving drugs? To be clear, I'm not proposing graduated IP protection (I am the abolitionist camp when it comes to IP), I'm pointing out that if you're really primarily concerned about the harms of second order effects from lack of innovation incentives, then easily 90%+ of all copyright-protected content (memes, reaction videos, TikTok dances) should get zero protection under your own logic, as there is questionable social value (if not outright negative), and essentially zero negative ramifications of not incentivizing that kind of slop. Consequentialism may not be the tool you want to rest your argument on if your argument is that every single video on YouTube deserves just as much copyright protection as pharmaceuticals.