Except IP isn't actually property because it has no scarcity and no one suffers a loss when you download a copy of the original. The only loss is "potential sales" but those sales are predicated on creating a scarcity that does not actually exist.
The lack of scarcity or the fact that a copy doesn't disappear doesn't mean it isn't property. Also, they definitely suffer a loss - the money you owe them for the copy you stole, that you won't pay.
Yeah you don't seem to understand the difference between the law in the US (or whatever country you are basing this on) and the philosophical moral concept. The concept of IP is relatively new in history and it is a pervasion of property because if we lived in a world with no scarcity we wouldn't need property laws to begin with. Scarcity is a bad thing. We shouldn't want scarcity. Economics is how we deal with people's unlimited wants for limited goods. Creating scarcity artificially makes the world a worse place because it makes it harder for people to get want they want for no reason other than extracting profit. It is morally wrong, just as it would be if I had an apple tree that magically grew a new apple every time someone picked one and I charged them money for it anyway.
Even if we had unlimited resources, you still don't have an innate right to someone else's work. If I make something, even if all the materials to make it are infinite, and even if I'm able to create an infinite number of copies of it, I have a RIGHT not to distribute it, and literally zero argument you could possibly make negates that. ---
'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen