It's very weird that a big monopoly basically owns the concept of a furry Hamlet and is able to do that kind of stuff. Even worse is the fact that they just apologized because they got caught, and this is not at all something wrong with the system that enables that kind of corporate control.
So what do you propose?
Your post is all over the place. You're complaining that Disney "basically owns the concept of a furry Hamlet," but we're not talking about
owning general concepts or Disney suing somebody who made a similar work that Disney claimed was derivative, so I have no idea where you're going with that. A group screened a Disney film that was released last year without paying Disney for the rights. Even the strictest, most elementary interpretation of film copyright would put that group in hot water.
We are still, for the time being, a nation of laws, and
the most important thing about laws is that they're supposed to apply to everyone, without regard to how much you like them at the moment. Copyright protects scripts and films owned by Disney just as it protects scripts and films owned by an independent filmmaker. You can't say Disney can't have copyright protection just because you don't like them.
People here seem to have much less of a problem understanding the difference between private and public use rights when music artists try to get Trump to stop stupidly playing their music without licensing it at rallies. Just because you buy an MP3 or have an Apple Music subscription doesn't mean you can play that song on a radio station or broadcast it at an event with thousands of people. It's the
exact same principle here; public sentiment just isn't on the side of the copyright enforcer, in this case.
Should Disney (or rather, the overzealous IP licensing firm representing Disney) have enforced that copyright, in this case? Of course not, it was petty and a PR blunder. Does that mean the PTA had the right to screen the film? No.