Look up the definition of "property". You'll find that it says nothing about it needing to be tangible. It literally just means "something that can be owned".
False. It's to protect citizens first and personal property second. Private property is invalid and a legal construction and assumes the personhood of corporations. It's this false equivalency that gives these orgs power over us. Our legal system should prioritize actual people. Anything else is morally bankrupt. A lot of people get mad because hearing the truth hurts.
To protect real property. Violations of copyright should be strictly civil issues. Why are the people who arrest murderers and vandals involved in this?
I honestly don't see why the cops should arrest someone that burgles an office building (say of a film producer) and not someone that gives away the content they paid to make for free. In what way is it different?
Ah, yes, that's a good argument for property definition. I agree that it seems excessive to use armed force to enforce this, I was more questioning how to differentiate the two situations in law so cops don't have to exercise that judgement.