[akira2501]

The music industry relies on government supported copyrights. Music is often unsaleable unless you have an existing exclusive contract with the label. Royalty rates are set by the government.

We're pretty far away from any actual "free market" here.

[amelius]

> The music industry relies on government supported copyrights.

The government protects intellectual property rights and they protect physical property rights. In a completely free market, you'd have to own an army to protect your company building. The people with the biggest army would own everything.

[akira2501]

> The government protects intellectual property rights and they protect physical property rights.

Intellectual property laws are in the constitution and are structured to allow the government to preemptively act on potential violations. For example seizing shipments that would violate patents or trademarks before any actual sale occurs. They can also create registration offices to certify claims publicly for the holders.

At the same time you were, and often still are, expected to physically protect your own property and the government largely can not preemptively act on potential issues. You must be a victim to receive service. To a large extent most property dispute /resolutions/ are handled through the civil courts. A criminal prosecution for theft may or may not be perused by a district attourney or certified by a grand jury, and even if it is, it does not make your injury whole.

You would still need a civil judgement to reclaim your property or it's claimed and adjudicated value. Once you have this judgement you are again personally responsible for enforcing it. You can file paperwork with the sheriff to audit their property and sell it or garnish their wages but you take all responsibility for this. Including finding their property or identifying their employer. None of this will happen on it's own simply because you were a victim of an actual property crime.

[occz]

There's a crucial difference between intellectual property and physical property - in the case of physical property, someone else having it necessitates that you cannot have it.

Intellectual property is infinitely reproducible and someone else having it does not mean you cannot have it.

[amelius]

How does that make a difference here?

Besides, physical property law is also just an abstract concept. If _you_ own a swimming pool, who says I cannot use it also?

[occz]

One person using a swimming pool means that another person cannot use that particular fraction of the same swimming pool at the same time.

Again, this does not apply to intellectual property, which is infinitely reproducible.