[aric]

That's correct. Your duplicating a home wouldn't harm me. My magical house would be Free and open source. Let me know of any bugs if you'd be so kind. Catch and release if you have a heart. The corner spiders are friends and good workers. I'll set up a server. Prepare your robotic minions. Ping me in 15 years. :)

Personal desire for privacy is wholly separate from whether or not your duplicating a house harms me. It's baffling logic to suggest otherwise. But I'll play along. In this hypothetical, you value some data and I don't want you to have it. Therefore, our interests clash. Acknowledging reality on my end would mean attempting to safeguard the data from you. That means taking realistic measures to do the opposite of making it free or widely available for a price.

There's an intellectual world. There's a physical world. Ethics is not particular laws subjecting people at arbitrary points in time. Ethics is discussion of real-world damage and recourse. It's philosophy that must be perpetually debated before it swirls down a corporate drain along with any other semblance of "justice" flushed with it to churn out prisoners and chilling effects. Caring about reality starts with recognizing reality. Duplicating binary information is easy. Information can spread across the world in seconds. Some obstacles are effective at earning support and capital from information. Other obstacles are not effective. Security is generally weak. Some people are naturally curious and hungry. Some people suck. Most people are generally good. That's reality. People who have disposable incomes often want to encourage the producers they value -- with money, without friction. That's why crowdfunding exists.