I find the term Intellectual Property disingenuous, and attempts to equate copyright violation with theft repulsive.

A defining attribute of property is exclusivity. As one person earlier put it, it must be able to be held. Further, one person possessing it excludes all others. A CD is property, as it is exclusively possessed. The data on the CD is not property, as a repetition of that data does not exclude possession of that CD. Copying a CD is not the same as stealing a CD.

While it can be argued that the result is the same for the producer of the CD, their choice of labels galls me. The loss is a result of a reduction in market demand, not theft. The demand is reduced as a result of the cost differential, availability, and  ease of duplication of data patterns. I am not, however, arguing that causing this loss is acceptable, but rather griping about the sensational corruption of language.

I feel I agree with JillSwift that a form copyright must exist in a capitalist system to ensure the cost of realizing a data pattern be rewarded.  As a big fan of computer games, I have keenly felt a loss in both quantity and quality of product recently produced. Less product has been produced because there is less market demand, and while I don't have hard numbers to back me up, I do have anecdotal evidence that it is the result of copyright violation.

I do feel I can defend the position that it is unethical to violate a copyright system that is designed to recompense and profit a content generator. I think we can agree that it is not ethical to benefit at another's expense. A generator of content incurs cost to produce content. They offer the content as a benefit to others in exchange for a cost incurred that benefits them. There are more than two possible scenarios. One - You accept, and incur a cost to benefit from the content. This is ethical by my definition. Two - You refuse, and do not benefit from the content, nor incur a cost. This is ethical for me as well. Three - You refuse, and acquire and benefit from the content from another source. This is not ethical. Another person incurred cost in generating that content, and you chose to benefit from it without providing them their requested recompense.

Also, I take some issue with the hypothetical public domain containing all possibilities. While I agree that there are a finite number of perceivable data patterns, It seems unlikely to me that we will approach anything close to achieving such a vast library of experience before the race would undergo multiple paradigm shifts making the idea of public domain as we know it irrelevant.

People on this website seem to want to define property and copyright based on 'what they think should be right'.

What people  don't seem to understand property and copyright are not defined based on personal opinion that are defined by a nation system.

You do not own a car or a house or a Big Mac because you think you paid for it, or because you earned the sole reason you have that property is the law recognised that transaction (ethics  , morals, hard work simply don't come into it).

Pirating a CD is theft  because the law says it is, end of discussion. It's not something that can be argued over or debated.

Now you may think the law is wrong and should be changed that is something different that obviously can be debated but until it is changed you are a thief if you pirate a cd.

I believe in law and order as the basis of any civilized society and that means in almost all circumstances obeying the law even if that law is a bad one, even if it gives advantages to people that you think it shouldnt give advantages to.

There are extremely circumstances where people can justify breaking the law but not giving someone 10 quid/dollars for a CD is not one of them

Hmm appeal to authority you have committed a logical fallacy.

Well lets see you start assuming then go on insisting and end up claming , nice way to argue for something just like the theists for the existence of god. Strangely enough you insist that humans don’t discus the low with humans have invented themselves in the past or do you believe a intelligent low creator (ID XD HAHA ) created the copyright lows (humans can not argue agents it )?

Besides I think I have proven that copyright is internally contradictory please address this.

PS : The word theft/steeling can not be applied to IP , like shown before by me and others you need another word to describe it no one is losing something if I pirate a CD. Use a different word I propose piracy and pirating or unauthorized duplication or something , theft is simply a polulistick word added to persuaded the senile judges and earn some popularity points for someone argument.