The tangibility is another red herring.
The important notion is scarcity.
The purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict that naturally arises when different people want to use the same thing for mutually exclusive goals. This can only happen when that thing is scarce.
Information can be used by anyone without getting in the way of anyone else. It is not scarce. If I possess or use it, that does not affect your ability to possess or use it.
But you copied it and its protected under copyright!
The password is only useful to me if it is a secret. I could give you my password, but then I would have to change it because I want to prevent you from impersonating me.
But in principle, you are right, I do not own my password. For example, If I got drunk and told you my password, I wouldnât call you a thief.
EDIT: wouldnât, not would!
Iâve never contested the legality of it, under the current laws.
Slave ownership was protected by law.
Copyright is just as invalid as laws that allow slavery. Itâs not morally equivalent, of course, but both are invalid.
In the modern world, this is not the current definition of property. Unless this becomes the definition of property in the future, the arguments you are making on this topic have no real significance.
200-300 years ago you could have easily said that about slavery â in fact, many people have. In that sense, and only in that sense, you are correct.
Copyright is only invalid in your mind. Copyright laws exist in many countries for a reason. You may not like it and may not agree with their definitions used for those purposes but they do exist. They are valid and they are used for the purposes that they were set out for whether or not some of us agree or disagree with it.
Of course they exist for a reason.
The reason is using the state to enforce monopoly and to crush the competition. Itâs very useful for the copyright holder, but everyone else suffers because of it.
Because of it we get less innovation, less art, less music, less literature. The artists and innovators are poorer and less incentivised to work. The copyright holders are almost never the original creators of works, they sell that ârightâ to someone else who then massively profits.
We also get less privacy, we get less freedom, we get software that we have no idea what it does behind our backs. We create more waste and harm the environment more because of it. We throw away perfectly good graphics cards because the drivers are outdated. We get DRM, products that are defective by design, as well as products that cannot be repaired.
Even though we have the internet and all human knowledge should be just a click away, it is inaccessible because of copyright and patents, and what is accessible is of low quality, and at a high price. Typical of monopolies.
And it is justified under a flimsy philosophical ground. Careful examination of it shows that it is just fog.
I donât agree with many of your views on it. I know it serves a purpose. Not everyone will like it and thatâs why there are court challenges all the time with respect to copyright. Things change, things evolve over time and changes are necessary. But that doesnât mean itâs all garbage.
Not in general, but in this specific case it certainly is.
All copyright and patent laws are garbage and the sooner we convince people of it, the sooner we have a chance to change something about it.
You have a very cynical view about all of it. No disrespect intended! 
We have had a millennium of Western Civilisation without copyright laws. All the great works of arts of the Renaissance and Baroque, all literature, music, inventions⌠All of that was done without copyright and patents.
Da Vinci didnât have patents on any of his inventions. Bach didnât have his fugues and cantatas copyrighted. Mozart, Beethoven⌠Michelangelo, Vermeer, Goya⌠Goethe, Shakespeare⌠All of their works were always free to copy.
There was plenty of creativity and invention in the past (much more than today, one could argue). The idea that copyright and patents are needed for that is absolutely absurd.
Yes, initially that was typical cycle of:
Problem â Reaction â Solution
Which was totally avoidable, itâs good time to start change or avoid it altogether.
Thatâs because nobody can copy their stuff. 
Amateurs! 
Nonsense, I copied Bachâs music a million times. I also made digital editions of many works of literature.
According to your view, everyone except the author, inventor, musician, scientist etc. is entitled to monetize his creation.
No one owns the copyrights to the music written by any composer before 1900.
Edit: Itâs considered in the public domain. 
No. This is not at all what I said.
I did make a point that authors, inventors and musicians would be much better off if they allowed everyone to copy their works (and either profit from it or not, the matter of profiting is morally neutral here).
That is true. It was even true when Bach was alive, nobody had copyright to his cantatas back then. This did not demotivate Bach from composing over 300 of them.
On the other hand, by earlier laws, Disneyâs copyright over Micky Mouse expired at least a dozen times, yet they keep changing the laws again and again to extend it.
It is only the morally repugnant entities like Disney that profit from copyright laws.
The answer to all of your questions is money.