I look at copyright like I look at vaccines, that is to say they are both hypothetically supplemental and also practically dangerous.
I saw you comment on the post about patenting the sun. To clarify, I'm not against patents, copyrights, trademarks, alleged intellectual property, etc, etc, in theory, but that is where I draw the line, as it partly comes down to how centralized powers enforce patents, etc. That gives that patent stamp a lot of power.
Tangible vs Internet
If you want to copyright a DVD for example, I would argue that digital copies of the content on the DVD is not the DVD. Why? Because a copy is not the same thing as an original. If you record a movie in a theater, one of the problems would be if you violated theater rules. So, if that was my theater, then it is my private property and I could perhaps ask you to leave. But I should not delete what you recorded. I should not take your phone or camera because that would be theft.
If I watch that boot-leg movie, then I should not be thrown in jail because I didn't create it. Now technically, if I give you money for it, then a lawyer could perhaps argue that I am aiding in a crime or something.
I am passionate about this subjective. Like I said, I hate copyright. I can talk all day about all of this. If you can copyright one thing, then what stops them from having a brain phone or Bill Gates vaccine tattoo with nano bots spy and record your thoughts in order to then copyright your thoughts and to ban you and imprison you for hate thoughts and thought crimes?
Copyright is a dangerous thing. I don't mind having copyright as a thing in some ways but I don't want governments to criminalize alleged copyright violations. I want government to get smaller. I want less laws, less taxes, less regulations. Copyright could sometimes have good intent and yet still have lasting effects years down the road. It is a slippery slope that is so dangerous as copyright and other things gives governments more and more power gradually.