http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pirate-torrent-sites.jpg
Someone creates a piece of IP. Some product that isn’t quite real, such as a book, a song, a picture, a game, a security program. 
Is it their property? Is their labor invested into that work and the copies made of it, authorized or not? Does that labor have value and, thus, does that ‘property’ have value?
Yes. And no. But mostly yes. 
Their labor is invested in that product and its copies. There is value in that labor. And the original is unquestionably their property as are the copies they make, at least until they sell them. But what about after they sell them? Is the untangible property that has been duplicated still theirs when they sell it? Yes, and no. It is their creation. And it absolutely should be credited to them. But does that claim of ‘property’ extend to the point that the consumer should be bound by contract not to share what they have ‘purchased’? 
You won’t like the answer no matter what side you are on. 
It doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant. Not necessarily morally or ethically, but in practicality, it doesn’t fucking matter. 

In MY opinion, the copy of my IP that I sell is now that person’s. They can make copies and distribute all day. Why? Because it means more people are being introduced to my work and that means, potentially, more people are enjoying it and might even buy a copy of their own. That person bought the material that I used to make the copy plus a surcharge for the right to have and use what I created as they see fit. That includes sharing it. 

But that is my opinion. The truth is, whether or not you believe that purchase entitles the buyer to share someone’s IP product, IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER.

Why? You cannot stop the 'illicit' or 'unwanted' proliferation of your work. Thus, adapt. Use it to your advantage. Reality says it doesn’t give a fuck about your IP rights. Reality says, if you can’t protect it, it isn’t yours to control. Reality says that if people aren’t willing to pay for your product, that’s too fucking bad.

Now, where do I get off saying some shit like that?
Well, let’s look at the reality of the IP world today. 
Software programmers and developers know that their IP will be 'pirated'. However, they also know that there are those that won't use the pirated version permanently or at all. The video game industry proves this all day. Nearly every game(especially popular ones) are available through pirated means and those copies work as well as the 'authorized' versions. 
Yet, there are people that still pay for the game. Me, for instance. I know how to and have voraciously pirated games, in the recent past and the far past. However, those games that I enjoyed, I have worked hard on buying out of my wish to support the developers and to see them bring more out. 
It's the same with music and with any, especially digital, IP. It can and will be 'pirated' if it is worth a damn. But if it is worth pirating, than it is worth buying. If it is worth buying, those that wish to will. But those that won't buy it, whether they want it or not, won't. 

IMO, software companies, especially in the game industry, actually waste incredible amounts of time, energy and money developing anti-piracy systems, all for naught. That time, energy and money(labor) could be better spend improving their product and finding ways to use pirating to their favor or, rather, simply not worry about it. They could even simply do nothing with it which would lower their cost of production and thus could lower the price for the consumer.  

So, they know full well their product can and will be pirated but they also know that, depsite this, PLENTY of people will pay for it despite the possibility to simply get it for free. 
As with the bootleg music of Metallica that built their fanbase, software companies can count on increasing their fan base when their product is pirated(ie, shared since the pirated copies derive from a purchased copy) and thus the potential pool of buyers increases as those that wish to support their current and future works will buy an 'authorized' copy. 
While it is hard to use piracy to their advantage, short of leaking a clean copy of the product to the pirate community(as many artists have done), there are ways to make purchasing more palatable to some in the pirating community as well as consumers in general.
Offer some exclusive bauble to those that buy the product, something that is hard or not worth duplicating but acts as a source of pride for the buyer. Whether it be exclusive content, a t-shirt, a signed copy, even pirates like exclusive shit, especially when they can’t easily duplicate it or when it is something that is less meaningful when it is ‘forged’. 
 
A comparable example, the game Warframe is FTP and is not paywalled. It's grind or pay. Yet it is incredibly successful and lucrative. Why? People are willing to pay for what they like, even if they don't have to. 
They had Founder packs, which were packs containing exclusive content that had no real edge in game and thus are really just for bragging rights. Those that bought the packs also received t-shirts. Hanes, in fact. In exchange for $150, I got a couple pieces of gear that are not really any better or worse than what is free to everyone and a tshirt. And I don't regret it. 

Kickstarter is replete with examples of baubles one could offer with their ‘authorized’ product to encourage purchasing over pirating. 

The software industry has other options they use. 
Some developers offer the product completely free and simply ask for donations to support it. Some offer a product that is free but if you wish to have support for it or to avoid ads or other minor nuissances, you pay a fee or subscription. 
Yet others release a free version that does the core of the purpose of the software. The AV industry is full of companies that offer programs that do the scanning, detecting and quaranting of viruses and malware. They then offer paid packages that include live support, spyware protection, live browsing protection and other features. Look at AVG, for instance. 

There are a plethoria of examples of producers of IP that prove that 'piracy' or offering a basic, but good, product for free, in part or full, is not detrimental. 

Industries like movies, music, books, internet security, video games, utility programs, even OS's(Windows) are all prone to piracy and it is not hard to acquire their products for free(at least not the digital versions). Yet they still post profits, make money and are able to carry on. Why? Because piracy is irrelevant. It doesn't take away from their ability to create, market and sell their products. If anything, it increases awareness of their product, provides newcomers a chance to test before they buy and makes it more likely for them to have more buyers of future works. 

My argument isn't one of saying that piracy of IP should be the main. My argument is that the problem of piracy isn't, really, a problem. It's all but inevitable, it's virtually impossible to prevent and worrying about and trying to avoid piracy is actually a waste of resources better used to better the IP or to conserve which would allow the IP to be sold to more for less(not that most IP couldn't be sold for less to more, Steam sales regularly prove this as well). 

So, yes, IP is labor and that labor does have value. Without getting into what value is(but it is subjective, not universal), there is no value in worrying about that which cannot be controlled. There will always be those that find ways to get what they want for less or nothing. The difference between IP and real(?) property is that when IP is 'stolen', it's not. It's copied. Nothing is lost. It can still be duplicated and sold to others. When RP is stolen, there's nothing to duplicate and sell. Hence why I wouldn't argue that spending extraordinary resources on protecting RP is a waste of time(that and the fact that it is easier to protect RP). 

Really, I think there are three reasons why people are concerned about 'protecting' their IP from being freely shared.

1. They mistakenly think it will make or break the bank. It won't. A good product will always have a buyer. Even if it can be had for free. 
2. They care more about the profit than about the intent of the product, to entertain, to elicit enjoyment, to make the world better or to bring a vision to life. That's fine, but I can't repsect someone who thinks the price of their art is more important than their art being seen(even software is art, fyi). 
3. Their pride. 

Again, it's my opinion that IP is art(even if it is utilitarian) and my opinion that an artist should want for their art to be disseminated, even if not to their financial gain. 
But it is not an opinion that piracy is unavoidable and that it is all but irrelevant. It is very much the reality of the IP world. It has been since long before the digital age and it doesn’t look to be going anywhere, no matter how hard the state or industries try. 
For every person that can code something to be 'unpiratable', there is someone that can prove them wrong. For every person they go after for piracy, there are hordes that never get so much as a letter from their internet provider.

For every person that doesn't pay for access to IP, there is someone who would be happy to. 
To reiterate, most people are happy to pay for a product they want and/or enjoy. Even if they can get it for free. As pointed out above, the software industry, especially video games, proves this again and again. From 'free to use' with the option to purchase extras or simply support out of charity to those available through piracy, IP, good IP, IP that is in demand, IP that is appreciated, will be supported by those that find it and appreciate it. 

More often than not(than piracy), when an IP product fails, it is because of the product or someone involved in the production, marketing or distribution of the product. Maybe the product sucks. Maybe it's not well known enough. Maybe it's too expensive. 

It’s interesting to note that the villainous pirates are the same people that have increased fanbases and brought otherwise unknown products to light for the enjoyment of those that would pay for the product. Metallica and muscial artists are a prime and somewhat well known example. 
Before the digital age, we had what were called bootlegs. Tapes that were ‘unauthorized’ copies of someone’s music(or a movie). These tapes circulated and created a fanbase for many an artist. I bring up Metallica because for all they profited from bootlegs(they played a huge part in their gaining popularity and thus selling tickets and merchandise, the real money of music), they were vicious in their villification of pirates on Napster. 

I would like to touch on the ethics and morality of piracy. Now, because such things are relative, this is an opinion. And let’s knock out the moral relativism thing real quick. Just because I say morality and ethics are relative does not mean that if you think it’s okay to rape that makes it okay. It means that our interpretation of morality is relevant but the results of our interpretations are very real. You may think rape is okay, but I doubt the victim does and I surely don’t so the reality is that the victim and those like me that may witness the rape will not stand for it. In your mind it is alright to force yourself on another, but that means nothing when those witnessing or involved in your actions disagree. In reality, you may well get fucked up or killed for engaging in what you see as a moral, or rather, not immoral act. 

To the point, is piracy ethical or moral, based upon the generally agreed upon set of morals and ethics?

Is it immoral to buy a movie and watch it with a friend? No, right?
Is it immoral to buy a movie and let your friend watch it without you? No, right?
Is it immoral for you to let your friend watch the movie at their house? No, right?

Now, what is the purpose of making a copy of that movie and giving it to your friend? 

So they can watch it when they wish, with or without you, where they wish? All of which we have determined is not immoral, as far as the general consensus goes? So... is making a copy for your friend to use immoral if the purpose and the use of the copy is the same as it was with the original, purchased copy?

“Well, then they could make a copy and share it and that can keep going on and on. Then the movie won’t make any money and people will lose jobs.”

So the morality is wrapped up in the potential for financial loss to the movie industry, right? It’s a threat to that industry to make a copy for your friend to use because now they won’t be helping to pay the industry to allow it to continue making movies, right?
If that is such a threat... do you think that more than 3 decades of bootlegs and piracy might have taken its toll by now? And yet, what do we have? Transformers. Pirates of the Caribbean. A dozen Batman reboots and series. 4 Incredible Hulks. Box office records being shattered. Continued DVD sales even in the face of Netflix in addition to piracy. 

“That’s not the point. Just because it hasn’t broken the industry doesn’t make it okay.”

But that is the point. If the reason it is wrong to make a bootleg and share it, freely, mind you, is because it poses a threat to the industry but there is no evidence, after decades and millions of bootlegs and pirated copies... then maybe that is not why it is ‘immoral’. 

In my opinion, it is NOT immoral to share, freely, with others, something you enjoy. Even if that means making a copy of it to share. Just as it’s not immoral to record or photograph a gorilla at the zoo to share with friends later. They didn’t pay for entrance, they didn’t have to smell the gorilla, and yet, it’s okay to share the experience with them with a copy of it. 

“It’s not the same as being there.” Am I right? Well, you aren’t. Yes it is. The purpose of viewing the gorilla is to see it, to watch it, to observe it. This can all be done with video or photos. Otherwise there are a lot of researchers wasting their time viewing footage taken in the wild. 
“So, you think it’s perfectly okay to make unauthorized copies of someone else’s work?” Yep, especially if I paid for an ‘authorized’ copy. 

Here’s the line because it is clearly defined and holds water. In my opinion, it’s immoral to make a copy and to sell it at a profit. Perhaps sell it for the cost of the material to make a copy such as the cost of a CD or DVD or a flash drive. But to sell at a profit as if you have imbued it with your labor? I mean, seriously, you spent 15 minutes waiting for it to be ripped while you took a shit then you waiting 5 minutes for it to copy onto a disc while you grabbed a Hot Pocket and another Monster and then you used a Sharpie to write the title on the disc and or case. So, you spent maybe 30 seconds ACTUALLY working on it. You can sell it for $.10 over cost, there’s your labor paid for.

I also think it is immoral to take credit for someone else’s work. You didn’t conceive of their work, you didn’t struggle to bring it into reality, you didn’t contribute to it. You can take credit for making a copy and sharing it in order to increase awareness. Congratulations, your a freelance advertisor. 

Does that mean we should all just find free copies of stuff and never pay for it? While not unethical, in my opinion, the reality of that would be fucking retarded. Of course there has to be those that pay for shit. And they do. Regularly. I have gigabytes of stuff I pirated and went on to purchase when I had the money and I thought of it. I know plenty of people that have watched pirated movies with me and listened to pirated music with me and played pirated games on my rig only to turn around, knowing they could get it for free from me, and pay for it because they wanted a copy. 

If the product is good, if it is priced right, if it is relevant and in demand... if it is worth pirating, it is worth buying. 

Piracy, for many, is a way to drive before we buy. To let others drive before they buy. And if you think that is immoral, then you should be picketing car dealerships for encouraging sin or some shit.

-Sicarius Savidicus-