> That conflicts with the natural rights that people would otherwise have to do what they want with atoms or bits they possess not natural rights but natural p

> That conflicts with the natural rights that people would otherwise have to do what they want with atoms or bits they possess not natural rights but natural possibilities - which by the way are totally disjoint from "rights" which are a legal/moral/civilizational construct/convention. And property (be it about physical or "intellectual" goods) is exactly one such right i.e. a legal/moral/civilizational construct/convention. Outside of the individual's own life and body (and very few subjects directly related to that), it quickly becomes very muddy and subjective at best to argue with "natural rights", especially when it comes to property rights. Whether or not my property claim to my PC or my garden is more justified than the property claim of some IP creator or publisher to their works, they both have in common that the property right, for as much as it exists, is a legal/civilizational norm that exists by virtue of being defined and enforced by the civilizational system we live in. So at the end of the day, like so often in legal matters when there is a conflict of interest and priorization between two rights or legal principles (i.e. legal/moral/civilizational construct/conventions), it all comes down to how the legal system is set up to balance and prioritize the conflicting principles/rights depending on the case configuration.