Thank you for proving my point: if it's scarce (only one company can make it) it has value. So the argument that the value comes from 'what it allows you to do' (not die) is bogus. Water allows you to survive so if utility determined the prices water would be extremely valuable, but it isn't.
$1000 water is ridiculous, but I'll bet that if I drop you in the middle of the desert, after 24 hours you'd be willing to pay $1000 for a liter of water. Yet it's the same water, you need it to survive wether you're in middle of the desert or at home. Clearly utility has nothing to do with value.
On the other hand, if I could do so, I'd just beat you up or worse and take that water. Which is what ends up happening when you see instances of piracy and IP violations around the world.
Eventually pricing also has to take into account, the point at which robbing you would not be worth the hassle for me, and we'd all be better off conducting a transaction. For example, GoG and Steam in the video game business.
I think a lot of these relationships are very adversarial and people, companies included, don't have much of a choice in the absence of a wide reaching and binding understanding.