Can you share an argument that shows this conclusion?
Discussion
according to libertarian ethics, one can only have ownership over scarce goods, which is not the case with a movie for example. Property is an institution created to avoid conflicts over scarce goods, it makes no sense to have property over something that can be infinitely copied.
Chewing on this…
Are we taking it as a given that property rights should only apply to something that has scarcity? I’m tempted to disagree with that premise but haven’t thought hard enough about it yet.
I can understand the nuance/conflict over “owning” something that can be replicated at-will, but I don’t think that that, in and of itself, is a sufficient case for the ethical (and effortless) replication and resale of someone else’s skilled work.
I think you are confused regarding the IP and "something that can be infinitely copied"
Just to know: IP is protected basically with the "copyright" law. Again: Copy Right !