[s1artibartfast]

>Maybe it does justify, if stealing doesn't mean depriving the owner of the food.

They have less food than before you took it, how is that not depriving them?

Who authors a book so that they can read it themselves? Is that a reasonable model of the world?

>I want to create IP for free, but I don't have a surplus of time to create it. IP holders deprive me of the surplus, because it's going to reduce the value of their “property” if I create IP for free.

How are they taking your surplus time? Nobody is forcing you to buy IP?

[laserlight]

> They have less food than before you took it, how is that not depriving them?

That's my point. You keep conflating copyright infringement and stealing. Conceptually and legally, they are different.

> How are they taking your surplus time? Nobody is forcing you to buy IP?

In order to earn a living, I have to give away my rights to the IP that I produce. I don't have any time left to produce IP that I could give away freely. My point is that it's not as simple as claiming that people can produce IP for free, given the status quo. IP law makes it more difficult for people to give away IP for free.

[freejazz]

> In order to earn a living, I have to give away my rights to the IP that I produce

You do not have to give away your rights to the IP that you produce. Which is an especially odd assertion to make as you insist that IP laws somehow make it more difficult to give a work away for free, as opposed to an alternative would require they be given away for free. One affords one the freedom to give away something for free if they so choose, the other requires it regardless of the author's interest.