The problem comes when people start to game the system and use their influence to get an advantage over others. The problems we see are mostly related to the way the rules have been set. So it's a matter of tweaking the rules rather than getting rid of the system.
So, no, I don't think Intellectual Property laws do more harm than good.
Maybe they aren't optimal. Maybe there's a better solution.
But doing away with them without first coming up with a superior method for making sure those ideas get shared at all is a great way to strangle the supply of better ideas and new inventions. Counting on people to give that stuff away for free out of the goodness of their hearts so everyone else can benefit while the brilliance of the originator gets treated abusively like slave labor is an excellent way for the world to cut its own throat.
Brilliant people can choose to turn their brilliance towards a "Fuck you, got mine!" personal policy if the world wishes to habitually and by policy fuck them over. Encouraging them to behave that way is an excellent way to actively foster a dystopian future.
The legal setup around copyrights and patents is also indicative of "bad". We can no longer inspect some item and decide whether or not it's copyrighted, for example. We have decided that the default is "assume copyright". You basically have to have a trial to decide whether some use is OK under one of the exceptions to copyright. This limits educational and critical use, and this, in practice, limits free speech.
As with most things the IP laws have resulted in perverse incentives benefitting those who can afford to spend the shareholders' money in their quest to protect their monopolies. The little guy gets screwed, yet again.
[0] https://questioncopyright.org/understanding-free-content