(I'll answer here because the comments can not be more than 6 post deep)

Laws can indeed be wrong and annoying, but I think the ethical discussion is a bit of track from the ontological discussion. I'll let that rest. The empirical discussion of the state of IP is maybe more interesting. :)

I have been an artist for many years so of course I will not challenge you about our lack of ability to control thoughts, or the value of stealing/lending ideas. But I think that you only scrape the surface when you assume that the internet is destroying the concept of IP. The contrary is actually happening. Everybody can steal an art-work. Artist have been fucked over since the Sumerians. When we defend our small businesses it is often understood that the real issue with IP is the artists and his individual pride. But we are only jesters - decapitated on a whim. What IP really means for the internet can not be underestimated, because every line of code depends on IP. An example is open-source software. GPL and BSD both depends on copyright, because you can not give away what is not yours. Another example: I post a lot of artworks as CC-by but you have to mention me when using my art even though I do not care to be named, because there would not be a license if there was no creator claiming it and without the license you would infringe on my copyright. It's a catch-22.

The internet has given so much extra value to Intellectual Property that the corporate lobbyists are pressuring the politicians to tighten the IP-laws and enforce them harder than ever. These laws do not apply to me or other small business-holders, but to corporate semi-states that doesn't give a shit about innovation or free exchange of ideas. That's just an illusion they like to uphold with artist as the show-case.

That's one of the reasons I am here, because this technology just might give a little back to innovators, artists and scientists. But we can't do that without the copyright.