This is just plain wrong. It's a lie. It is crisply defined in the United States Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the enumerated power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

It's the laws and their case law interpretations that were written to interpret this constitutional law that are broken and misused. I argued back in the 90s that "limited times" needed to be right, and also what "writings and discoveries" rightly meant. You need only get the motive right: "promote the PROGRESS of science and useful arts." That is to say "exclusive right" needs to be broken into its parts as well.

Suppose, for a microsecond of your thought, that you defined PROGRESS (as a process on science and useful arts), then microsplit patents, trademarks, copyrights into better categories based on realities of the information age, and then split limited times to times reasonable to the motive.

For example:

Right to be above criticism: Say 1 Month on the science or art in use. (Yup, for the sake of progress).

Right to be above lying criticism or hyperbole or fallacy: Say 1 Year on science or the art in use. This also requires that the science or art not be lied about by the discoverer or writer for the same time.

(for the sake of progress).

Right not to be copied: Say based on the expected commercial life and the object as a whole with specific exceptions (longer or shorter) based on the type of science or art in use. How long should a blog post be protected? Should a claim to a right for a time be respected based again on type? So, I can claim a copy right (not copyright) for a as long as I want as long as it is published in a standard recordable fashion with the science or useful art and doesn't exceed a time. DRM must expire after a time.

Right not to be copied without proper attribution of the scientific observation, inventor, or writer to the life of the actual (non-anonymized) inventor or writer or 99 years whichever ends first. This right is not transferable or purchasable.

People need to sit down an update the legal mess that the lawyers and greedy corporate types have made. But yes, IP has the purpose to control one's critics (particularly if they lie), competitors (to incentiivize progress), and customers (to incentivize progress). I completely disagree that that what we have today is not a COMPLETE MESS!