This is based on physical reality. You have to be in control of a item in order to use a item. You can't get away of this. You can claim that something is 'publicly owned' or that it's communal property or something like that, but in the end somebody has to be in control of it at some point to use it. If you don't believe me try having two people simultaneously use a single spoon to eat food.
Property rights is the term that is given to describe how we delegate control (aka 'ownership') in order to avoid and resolve conflicts.
> Copyright is a legal concept that grants exclusive rights to the creator of intangible entities such as software.
No it's not. Copyright does not grant _any_ rights. You would still have the same rights to use your creation with or without copyrights.
To understand what is going on:
'Copyright' stems from government censorship. When the printing press came out it threatened the stability and security of government by making it dramatically cheaper to distribute ideas and knowledge. Control of the spread of ideas is a important thing to have when you are a ruler of a population. So they made it illegal for people to own and operate a printing press unless they had a special license that came with a number of restrictions (such as having all published works inspected by a government censor). This license was called 'Copyright'. A author had to sell their works to a licensed publisher to legally get their writings duplicated and disseminated.
The publishing houses that became very wealthy and powerful under this regime used their wealth and power to influence the governments of the day to re-establish and maintain copyright rules in order to limit copying in order for them to limit competition from smaller publishers.
This system has evolved into the modern copyright system of today.
The modern copyright system cannot grant 'rights' over intangible property. It simply does not have the power or authority to do that. To do this would require changing the basic functionality of the universe to control the flow of information.
Instead Copyright functions by violating the property rights of entire populations. It controls, under threat of fines, imprisonment, and other forms of violence, the ability for individuals to use their own physical property to record and disseminate information. Ostensibly this is done to create economic incentive for people to write and publish various things, but it increasingly going back to it's old roll of censorship... using copyright to control the flow of information for political reasons.
> . So copyright is a reasonable extension of the Natural Right of ownership of property.
No. In fact it's a gross violation of natural right of ownership of property.