>Step back for a second and think about what ownership actually implies?
It implies identity, and control. The former being most relevant here. And yes, if you want to use someone's identity you need to at least get consent.
>Exclusive control over a scarce resource.
"Scarce" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. And in the grand scheme, everything can be "scarce". The internet isn't infinite either, only in a virtual sense (no pun intended).
Meanwhile, thoughts and data are resources, and you can own the idea behind it. Hence, "intellectual property".
> there is no feasible model that explains why one person has control or ownership of it over another.
That's where identity came in. If an inventor got run over tomorrow, there may still be iterations on the invention, but it would completely alter the course of iteration. That's ownership in a sense. Ownership that your ideas can't just be understood or replicated unless you transfer your thoughts to another medium. And like any conversion, data is lost in the exchange.
>they exist to give privilege and power to certain groups at the expense of others.
Yeah, the less off inventors. Do you know why IP is automatically granted? Because someone unaware of the legal channels would just have their own IP signed off once anyone in business gets a whiff of it.
of course, the priveledge still abuse it. But when everything becomes a free for all, the rich get richer.