So if I make a new, identical copy of a GPL'ed codebase - should I feel free to use it for whatever purpose I want and ignore the GPL?

I will happily take your money and provide you with a new, identical copy of it if that's the deal you want to make.

That doesn't make any sense as an allegory.

Nobody is TAKING anything. Everything is at the place where it belongs.

Also if you'd be able to make identical copies of money, of course people would accept it.

I generally support this argument, but to play devil's advocate, you might consider the bit stream used to transfer the content to be new bits. The file may be a bit-for-bit copy if you ask a computer, but streaming it required a series of voltage fluctuations that wouldn't have happened otherwise. You could consider that series of events to be roughly analogous to a CD-ROM containing some content. You can load the CD onto two computers and get two copies of its content, but there are two physically distinct CDs just like there are two physically distinct series of bits streaming to two locations.

Literally the NFT argument

An NFT is a certificate of authenticity. Copies of the associated item don't have a valid certificate. Getting satisfaction from a copy is orthogonal to the value associated with the authenticated original.

I'll go into your mailbox and take your paycheck. I'll provide you with a new identical copy of it. I'll leave the previous existing copy intact, but in my possession.

Which one of us gets to deposit the money?

You're copying the check but stealing the money. The money and the check are not the same thing.

If I copy your car key and use it to steal your car. I've copied the key but stolen your car.

You're copying the entertainment value provided and stealing the income that is related to that value.

Theft is when you take something from someone. As in, what you have materially gained, they have materially lost. Copyright infringement is not theft, and must be treated differently, because what you gain, nobody has lost; the supply is infinite.

If you accuse someone of stealing the income, but they haven't gotten any money out of it, how does that make sense? What you're describing is a missed opportunity for a sale; had someone 'stolen' nothing and simply passed the product by, you would still not have made that sale and nothing would have changed.

What about borrowing from public libraries? Buying a used legitimate disc at a garage sale? Are people who do this in the wrong?

Finally! I agree with this. I think that physically purchased goods should be free from any sort of "DRM." and is not stealing.

The difference is one party at a time, i.e. household, library patron, etc, can enjoy the entertainment service.

When you pirate it, The original owner of the dvd retains the service value as well as providing the service to others without any value being transferred to the workforce/IP holders.

That's the difference and I personally am all in for a mythical solution that but still allows complete freedom of ownership while also stopping people from digitally reproducing assets and dispensing them exponentially.

I don't believe it will ever happen tho :/