Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think Tolkien did not borrow? Where do you think the names of half the characters came from? Our culture would be substantially reduced if we removed all copying. > there should be no termination to it and his family should profit from it forever. What purpose would that serve for society? > We should never take away the rights of the people who create things. If is their choice to give openness to them. We creat…
I believe the bargain is correct or swayed to the user because people want it for free. the creator should have the sole right to set the terms of use and transfer the terms. It is his property.
As such, copyright law established an artificial, temporary monopoly which from the outset it was acknowledged was separate from ownership.
And unlike property law, which is frequently (though not universally) seen as codifying "natural" rights to ownership and use, with copyright the bargain is explicit:
The copyright holder is granted restrictions on the rights that would otherwise be held by the public as an incentive to contribute to benefit society as a whole.
There is no inherent right for a creator of a work to expect society to limit the spread of information for their benefit. To grant copyright, society is limiting our freedom of expression to conjure out of thin air a commercial monopoly.
To argue that the bargain is fair is one thing, but confusing copyright with property is something else entirely.
> the creator should have the sole right to set the terms of use and transfer the terms.
The creator does not have the sole right to set the terms of use and transfer under any jurisdiction today. If you argue for that, you argue for a regime so restrictive that we have never seen its like. What you are implying is even far stricter than what applies to actual property.
For example, almost all countries have some system of compulsory licensing. All countries I'm aware of have expiring copyright terms (moves to try to perpetually extend the stated duration notwithstanding). All have exceptions of certain types of copying.
All puts limits as to the extent which the creator of a work may limit (even contractually) usage, even in cases where the creator explicitly avoids selling copies and instead merely licenses or leases instances of the work. (E.g. very few jurisdictions would allow the creator of a work to limit use by race or gender).
It is up to society to set these restrictions because these rights only exist because of the intervention of society in the first place. If a creator does not accept the bargain with wider society, they are free to never release their work. We are not obliged to support rent seeking - the bargain must be balanced accordingly to make up for the self imposed restrictions on freedom of expression that it creates.