Indeed, and I even referred to the labor justification later on (i.e. copyright is a good thing because creators are entitled to the fruits of their labor). But it's still an unnatural fit, because unlike things that the labor theory of property has traditionally been applied to, ideas are inherently shared, or I suppose you could say created in the head of each person exposed to them. To claim ownership over other people's minds is far, far beyond anything John Locke or King David ever contemplated.

Ideas are just inherently unlike physical property on a very fundamental level. If my neighbor lends me his hammer, I can give it back. If my neighbor lends me an idea, it never left him, but I still can't ever rid myself of it.

No matter how much I care about content creators being compensated fairly — and I do, both for philosophical and selfish reasons — it is a farce to pretend an idea that exists in everyone's heads and originated in none of them is the exclusive property of one person. It is simply unnatural in a way that physical property isn't.

> I suppose you could say created in the head of each person exposed to them.

I created Harry Potter, not J.K. Rowlings? My labor in reading the novels is equal to her labor in writing them?

I think that argument falls flat particularly with copyright because there is no copyright liability in the face of independent creation. Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from owning their original ideas, even if other people independently think of the same idea.

Just curious, have you ever read any Joseph Campbell? He does a better job explaining my "You didn't build that" argument than I can.