In the modern world, especially in Western nations, knowledge has been treated as something that can be owned. Therefore, the same property rights one has toward other persons and objects also apply to knowledge.
However, there is a rather large problem with this framework. Knowledge is a non-physical while objects are physical. A fairly reasonable argument can be made that because of this difference, treating knowledge as property is a categorical error. Of course, anyone making this argument must also propose an alternative framework.
Although plenty of people critic modern intellectual property law, they all (to my knowledge) still frame the issue as one of property rights. For example, supporters of Creative Commons all argue that knowledge can be owned, but should not.
Can anyone think of a conception of knowledge in a way such that property rights do not apply?
EDIT: It has been suggested that this question may also be an answer to my question. Although it does touch on the issue, it does not fully explore the core problem. The closest it gets is when the top answer says,
A common view is that due to its reproducibility (e.g. "theft" does not deprive the owner of the use of his/her creation or invention) "intellectual property" lacks a crucial feature of being "property".
This is what I meant when I said that it can be argued that "treating knowledge as property is a categorical error". The problem is that making this argument invites the question 'How should knowledge be treated if it cannot be property?' I have never seen someone answer this question, and I am hoping someone here may be able to point me to someone who does.