Every exchange, be it of goods, services or ideas, relies on a regulated marketplace.
I believe there is a natural distinction between matter and information. It's obvious in physics and I'm not sure why we feel the need to muddy the water with our legal code.
In contrast, information can be copied and move to new media fairly simply.
If Grandpa's pocket watch were destroyed, you could buy another pocket watch of the same model and vintage, but it really wouldn't be Grandpa's pocket watch. This is one source of friction when estates are settled. In contrast, you could copy all the digital photos of Grandpa and hand them out on USB sticks like party favors.
That means, with some exceptions, to the extent that someone is harmed in information 'theft', it's that their business model was affected (I can't make as much money on Mickey Mouse cartoons!). It seems like a contradiction to me to call it 'capitalism' when government protects particular business models.
That's why I said I prefer to think of IP laws as 'corporatism'.
Sorry if I under-explained things.
Knowledge behaves like capital in many senses. You can pay to acquire it or hire someone who has it, and doing so can help you or your organization to be more productive. Thus in at least some contexts it's useful to refer to it as a type of capital.
I feel that IP monopolies are better described as 'corporatism' since those rights are directly proportional to your ability to enforce them with a legal team.