That is a very simplistic take on the issue at hand. Most people will agree that a limited-scope copyright makes sense as a way to incentivize production of cre

That is a very simplistic take on the issue at hand. Most people will agree that a limited-scope copyright makes sense as a way to incentivize production of creative works. But there is nothing inherent or "rightfully" private property about things you create - it's a right granted by governments in order to promote creative behavior that is seen as good for society at large. The 20th and 21st centuries have seen giant entertainment industries lobbying for an ever-expanding copyright term. (Some people say endless, because it has expanded faster than time has passed.) In addition, they have successfully created a cultural belief that physical property and intellectual property should be treated the same despite the fact that they are inherently different. (When I take your wallet you no longer have it, but when I take your ideas we both have them.) If anything, the 20th century saw a massive effort to privatize our shared public culture as it was created. You can make the argument that we are better off as a result of this privatization, but it's simply incorrect to frame this as people trying to nationalize what is inherently private property.