Exactly. The only people who get pissed off about [IP] monopolies are the ones who can't create a competing product. They just want to copy someone else's ideas and make a fortune for themselves while spitting on the original creators.
[and yet, those who support intellectual property are the ones with an 'entitlement' complex]
Nonsense. Copying and imitating have been around since creative work began. Sometimes the copier can produce the product better and cheaper, perhaps distribute it better, etc. More accurately, the only ones who get pissed off about IP infringement are people who just want to sit around collecting royalty checks instead of actually working and creating. 
Ever since the beginning of creative work, it has been considered legitimate to copy others' work-it used to be considered flattery.
you treat the "market" as if it is separate from any law. But to do so you must abolish all existence of the notion of "fraud". Like I said before there are those who are anarchists,and those who are not anarchists.
Exactly. Killing the artist and not the consumer seems to be the ongoing bias in the anti-IP side of debate. I actually believe in a balance of property rights.
Really? Would you like to speak to the classical guitarist who gave me lessons at the age of 5 and how astonished he was when I watched him play an etude and instantly played it back at him without even reading the music?
Nonsense. Artists weren't dying for lack of IP laws before they existed. There will always be a market for music as long as humans can hear it. Artists who work for a living instead of sitting around collecting royalty checks will never starve. Improvisers have always had to do this. Ending the state-granted IP privilege would force all artists to do what Indie artists do-work their asses off like people in every other profession.
