Intellectual property is a broad and ill-defined notion so I want to be clear what I am talking about. I am not talking about someone taking credit for another's published work, surely authors should get credit. I am not talking about patenting designs of physical objects with immediate commercial use. I am talking about the ownership of abstract information that appears to take place in the arts and sciences. The notion that someone can own information and legally control its use and expression is absurd to me.
Example: Walt Disney creates a drawing of "Mickey Mouse" and makes a cartoon of him on film. He controls the mediums in which the information that is "Mickey Mouse" is now stored. He chooses to release these mediums for public view. I view these mediums. The information that is "Mickey Mouse" is now in my psyche. I can choose to paint a painting of information from my psyche that happens to be a derivative of "Mickey Mouse". Under current laws around the world there could be legal repercussions for this. So Disney has partial legal claim to a medium in my immediate possession. Disney also has a legal claim to any such medium that may exist involving " Mickey Mouse" and therefore has legal claim over part of the expression of my psyche.
Almost all cases I can think of involving ownership of abstract information require seizing power from individuals over their immediate reality for enforcement. This is oppression.
What do philosophers have to say about such matters?
What schools of thought are there involving "intellectual property"?
Are there any sound ethical arguments behind these types of laws?