But assuming you don't want to read an actual book... basically, the original reason that copyright was created was to encourage contributions to the public domain. By giving incentives to creators, we'd enrich the commons. However, the system does nothing of the sort today. This indicates to me that at the very least, we need to re-think the way we handle intellectual property. Even if you disagree, there are still many flaws in the implementation of intellectual property laws. Mostly, there are large questions as to who 'wins' if two people invent something simultaneously in different parts of the world (this happens quite a bit), the assumption that we can have a single repository of all useful knowledge that's been created, and that we can have skilled enough individuals working in said office to determine if something is novel.
In addition to reform, I'd actually go a bit farther and say it's not necessary at all. There are a few different arguments, actually, depending on which angle you'd like to pursue. For those on the far, far left, IP seems to have the same accumulation and exploitation problems that private property has, but worse. Big companies have entire divisions that are basically IP farms, then abuse those portfolios to keep new, innovative companies out. Then, there's the leaky abstraction argument: IP law is trying to shoehorn existing property laws onto the concept of knowledge, but I'd argue that this abstraction is exceptionally leaky, to the point of not making sense. There are also the examples made in Against Intellectual Monopoly, showing many instances where IP was actually harmful for society, and where people actually made more money by disregarding their abilities to enforce infringement.
Anyway, I'm almost to the point of rambling. My point is that this is a complicated and nuanced topic, and one can be opposed to IP without simply yelling "LOLOL I WANT MOVIES 4 FREE!!!111"
