I agree with you that the new name is more representative, and I am a fan of using the new name, and I disagree with aaronbrethorst's comment.
But you're just flat wrong that there are no rights being managed. The right that is being managed is the only right of copyright: the right of the "owner" of some "property" to restrict the copying done by other parties. (the scare-quotes are there because I dispute the idea that "IP" is actually property)
"Rights" always make things more restricted than their absence; they restrict what people can do. Any right you might consider does not in fact guarantee that the entitled party actually gets the thing they have a right to; it only makes it illegal for other people (or governments or non-natural persons) to violate those rights. Right to freedom of movement doesn't give you the ability to cross oceans nor walk through walls, it only makes it illegal for others to put walls deliberately in your path. Etc.
But you're just flat wrong that there are no rights being managed. The right that is being managed is the only right of copyright: the right of the "owner" of some "property" to restrict the copying done by other parties. (the scare-quotes are there because I dispute the idea that "IP" is actually property)
"Rights" always make things more restricted than their absence; they restrict what people can do. Any right you might consider does not in fact guarantee that the entitled party actually gets the thing they have a right to; it only makes it illegal for other people (or governments or non-natural persons) to violate those rights. Right to freedom of movement doesn't give you the ability to cross oceans nor walk through walls, it only makes it illegal for others to put walls deliberately in your path. Etc.