I dont consider it a right, I only recognize negative rights as valid natural rights.
They may have the legal authority to control it, and may have the legal authority to use government guns to prevent unauthorized copying, but they do not have the moral or ethical right.
You must reject natural rights in favor of "who ever have the most guns has the right" method to definition of rights
Copyright is an artificial right created to assist the "progress of the Science and Useful Arts."
Is copyright still doing that, or is it creating cartels, being used to tell you what you can see and hear, encouraging patenting obvious things for a "landgrab", and supporting companies who don't really add anything to society other than file lawsuits when they think they can get a payout?
For some industries that need a lot of upfront R&D and investment and can be well articulated, copyright/intellectual property should be able to be used to protect that investment, but we went very wrong with the current maximalism with copyright terms being 100+ years for songs that might take less than 1 hour to make, and where things like business processes and "X but with a computer" can get patented.
Well--being U.S. centric here--some are placed in a category of "inalienable" e.g. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as described in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. See https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/.
While U.S. copyright is established by the Constitution, does this mean it's in the same category as "inalienable"? Something worthy of more research on my end to be sure.
It probably wouldn't be considered "inalienable"... I don't think eliminating it is the answer; some form of Copyright should probably exist. Maybe it would be appropriate to have shorter default Copyright durations overall and allow people to apply for longer terms if they think the work is particularly novel.
Something doesn't sit right with me when the same legal system supports these two different scenarios:
1) I find land or buy land and occupy it indefinitely as my property with exclusive use rights
2) I create something new using my creativity and have little to no rights over its exclusive or non-exclusive use
Why would I not control something I create when practically most other ownership rights are based on a first-come-first-served basis? Clearly if I created something, I came to it first.
Inalienable rights are about as objectively real as Christ's salvation of mankind. Something many people will believe to their grave and won't recant even under serious duress, but nobody can actually prove such things exist as anything more than mere assertions.
The concept of Inalienable or natural rights stems from the Philosophy of Self Ownership
If you deny the existence or objectivity of natural rights, then you also deny the concept of "self" and that humans are self aware actors that objectively own their own bodies.
Theft is the act of taking something from someone, if you copy something you by definition have not taken it, you copied it.
The original is still there, intact.
Taxation is closer to theft than copyright infringement is.