> I suppose I'm part of some irrelevant market segment they don't care about. So it's not just a service problem.

That is exactly what a service problem looks like. The service problem is caused by having strong copyright available to large corporations that can use it as a profit optimization tool. The role of copyright should be to protect small content creators, but that is not how it is implemented.

>You know what sucks? Wanting to buy something, being willing to pay for it and finding out that what I want is not available to me. Because of copyright.

This seems to me to be a very strange mindset. Someone else has created content you want, is not offered for sale to you, so you it is in your right to seal it? What makes this OK and where does it end?

> What makes this OK and where does it end?

What makes it okay is that intellectual property can be copied infinitely without depriving the original owner of it, and the fact that they refuse to sell it to you means you're not even depriving them of potential income, so there's no way of claiming there was any damage done.

It ends when you start talking about actual property that has limited physical supply. Intellectual property isn't real. It naturally has infinite supply, so its market value should be zero.

Its market value should be whatever people in the market are willing to pay for it given that the owners are willing to sell it at that price.

There are lots of things that have artificial scarcity through the simple act of ownership and this is one of them.

And artificial scarcity is just kind of... fine? We don't mind people intentionally destroying (or locking away) things just to increase the monetary value of other things?

Why would you assign malign intention to it? The facts are that there is scarcity and that where there is scarcity and demand then the monetary value will rise above zero. Just because someone can make something unlimited doesn't mean they should, especially to satisfy your desires - that's the job of you and your hard work or your wallet.

The same goes for the "it won't deprive you of anything" argument. There are plenty of things we all own that if someone borrowed it wouldn't necessarily negatively affect us, but that doesn't mean that we should lend them while we're not using them, especially not for free simply because it would satisfy someone else's desires and pocket if it were free.

There should be better delivery of items given the tech we have (it's better than it was but could be much better); there should be copyright laws that benefit the actual creator more, not just huge corporations (these appear to be getting worse); the price of media is often too high (though again, it's a lot better than it was); none of these are solved by pretending we could or should live in a communist utopia.

Thanks for responding and making your position clear. It seems that your belief that intellectual property should not exist is central to your position. I tend to disagree, but I am sure you have heard the objections.

If you don't believe that intellectual property is legitimate, why isnt it OK to deprive someone of potential income from it in the cases where it is monetized? Does the attempt to monetize it grant some sort of exclusivity?

Copyright infringement is not stealing. When the content is not being offered to people of a certain demographic, the rightsholders literally cannot even claim that they're causing any damage even if they choose to "pirate". They never had the chance to buy it in the first place. Even worse is how they then blame "piracy" when asked why their goods are not available!