But it still costs money *up-front* to write the program, debug it, market it, improve it, etc. It also costs money up-front in the music and movie businesses too. How are providers supposed to recover those costs and make a profit?
To me, it indicates that companies that are in the business of selling ideas have simply found themselves in the wrong business with the advent of the Internet. Rather than adapt their business models to suit the market or go out of business, they use their political power to silence and imprison those who disagree with their ideas on how their products may be used.
In other words, this is not a free market at work. This is fascism, in that the government is finding itself to be the sponsor and caretaker of corporate power.
To answer your point, I shed no tears for those who would lock away freedom in the name of self-preservation. This includes companies who have built themselves on selling information and ideas, and who are finding it impossible for their "products" to remain scarce with the advent of a global digital network.
Under your logic, once a single CD is sold, the product is then "represented in digital form", and the seller can do nothing to prevent unlimited copies from happeningCorrect! You win a prize. I don't see the basis for your claim that this is a reason for promoting IP protection laws, however. That is a complicated solution to the problem that restricts freedom in the process. Occam's Razor would say simply that if we can't prevent information from being copied, we should look for other business models besides selling information.
IOW, if it costs me $foo to develop this product, and $bar to market it, and the sales can't recover $foo + $bar due to widespread digital copying, my opinion is that I should rethink my business plan.
Your idea, however, is that I should request a law to preserve my business plan and guarantee me a profit, which as a proponent of individual freedom, I cannot agree with.