I'm curious, what do you believe is the origin of those rights, and why should those rights carry the enforcement of the state? I have yet to hear an explanati

I'm curious, what do you believe is the origin of those rights, and why should those rights carry the enforcement of the state? I have yet to hear an explanation or argument that suggests an inherent moral right for a creator to control their work once it has been shared, and I have heard several very good ones that "Copying is not Stealing" and that we have a right to share, consume, and remix ideas and media that have come into our possession. Ideas are not material, and equating theft, which deprives the rightful owner of all use of their property, and copying, which violates a state granted monopoly, is an egregious false equivalence. When someone moves into the home of our hypothetical aunt has built she can no longer live there, lease the property, or sell it, she is deprived of the use of a specific physical thing. I am very sympathetic to the need for creators to make a living, and I am aware that there is probably some level of injustice in copying and enjoying their work without paying them. It seems to me that the loudest complainers have been producers and studios. The middle men extracting rent from the copy machines artists needed to be able to sell their work. Those who make media and sell it directly to the public, or sell tickets to live performances still seem to make a decent living, and absent those gatekeepers I can enjoy a much wider variety of music than my parents did at my age. Yes there is a small harm when artists are not paid, but it is much less than the continual erosion of our right to own things we have bought, and to participate in our own culture