I think we have to be careful with using the term "property". People are very familiar with the concept of property. So when they hear that word in the context of this debate, they (understandably but mistakenly) assume the copyright makes artistic works the "property" of the author. From there, one automatically begins to draw analogies to stealing, etc. However, none of these terms are in keeping with copyright law, because copyright law is not about property. The law is very careful to draw a distinction. Here's the correct terminology:

- Copyright law provides authors a financial monopoly. It gives them exclusive rights as to how a work may be sold, displayed publicly, or performed publicly. It does not make that work the "property" of the author. - Copyrighted material is known as "infringing material", which is not the same as stolen goods. - Violators are said to have "misappropriated" a copyright, or to have "infringed" upon the province of a copyright, thus committing "copyright infringement". This is not the equivalent of piracy.

Even trespassing doesn't seem like a valid analogy. But I would argue that we don't really need to analogize. Why not just look at the law for what it is?

The point is incentive authors to create new works by granting them a financial monopoly on their works, but to protect public interests and the freedom of speech, information, and ideas by making this monopoly limited in time and scope. It wasn't designed to prevent people from accessing an author's work. It was to prevent them from profiting off of it.