Let's start here:

“Yet a closer look at the alleged benefits of intellectual property shows that they have been massively exaggerated."

If he claims that the benefits are "alleged', then this informs me about some of his assumptions.

Intellectual property is about property rights. Property rights are the benefit. The right of authors, product developers, game developers and musicians to own the fruits of their labor is not anything 'alleged'.

The core of IP is to protect products, not ideas. IP is primarily about securing the rights to commercially distribute products that you have crrated. Without IP, the game developer has no right to own his/her game and to own the commercial distribution of it. Hence, no property rights to the fruits of his/her labor.

The abuse of IP is in regards to protecting ideas, features, words and such. That is abusive red tape. It should be possible to condemn abuse and overreach without dismissing IP.

In a fully free market the primary means of protecting IP would be via reputation. One can respect people's right to own their product, and their commercial distribution,without assuming that we must have a monopoly structure that secures IP. Enforcement is separate from the theory of rights.