That is false. Copyright is not an property, and does not have property rights.
Calling copyright a property is an simplification. Copyright is an state enforced monopoly, given as a privilege by the state to the author. Privileges is not properties, and as thus have no property rights attached to them.
Copyright is not different from any other state given privilege. Some people has got permissions to sell drugs, produce weapons or export particular products to specific countries. Neither of those privileges are "rights".
Of course, we can turn this around and say that all property right is privileges given by the state (as they are the only one enforcing the law). However, this kind of thinking would then require one to accept that property, like that car parked in the house, is property owned by the state and given as an privilege to someone they define as an owner. It leads to a place where we are better off defining physical objects as different compared to privileges that we receive from the state.
> However, this kind of thinking would then require one to accept that property, like that car parked in the house, is property owned by the state and given as an privilege to someone they define as an owner.
This is a failure of logic. Even in the absense of a government, you would own your car--but you would have to personally defend that ownership at all times. The privilege that the state grants is security in your ownership: external protection from uncompensated use or taking. This is how intellectual property rights are analogous to other property rights. The government does not create or own the content; what they grant is protection from uncompensated use or taking of the content.
Calling copyright a property is an simplification. Copyright is an state enforced monopoly, given as a privilege by the state to the author. Privileges is not properties, and as thus have no property rights attached to them.
Copyright is not different from any other state given privilege. Some people has got permissions to sell drugs, produce weapons or export particular products to specific countries. Neither of those privileges are "rights".
Of course, we can turn this around and say that all property right is privileges given by the state (as they are the only one enforcing the law). However, this kind of thinking would then require one to accept that property, like that car parked in the house, is property owned by the state and given as an privilege to someone they define as an owner. It leads to a place where we are better off defining physical objects as different compared to privileges that we receive from the state.