You exchanged it for money.
When you sell me an apple, that apple becomes my property. Once you’ve sold the apple to me it is mine.
I don’t care how much effort you spent growing that apple, You give up your right to control this apple because it is no longer yours. You exchanged it for money.
Now this apple of mine I will share it if I want to. I will even COPY my apple (i.e. throw it in the replicator from Star Trek) then share the copies to starving children. It becomes none of your business what I do with my own apple. This is how property rights work in physical objects.
Information cannot be property. COPIES can be property.
What about property rights in copies of information? If I modified the code in your copy of a game (as opposed to doing it to my copy) without permission, would that be okay? I am exercising control over your property without your permission (a right which is reserved ONLY for the property owner). We know that this is not ok, because not only is it trespass, it is also a form of vandalism and a breach of privacy and is not to be tolerated.
Now contrast with this scenario: Say if I purchased a copy from you… what if, I take this copy, I go to my computer and make modifications to it. Would that still be trespass or vandalism? Not at all! Because me modifying my copy affects only my copy. Your copy is unaffected. Even if I upgraded my copy to version 1.1, YOURS IS STILL AT VERSION 1.0! That is why no conflict occurs over the use of property, each exercises control over their own copy. This is how property works.
Property rights is absolute morality. We all know Don’t steal. Don’t hit. Don’t trespass property. Don’t exercise control of what isn’t yours. And so it is even with copies of information. Don’t veto my use of my copy if you’ve exchanged that right for money. Just like the apple, I will share my copy if I want to because that’s MY PROPERTY. The amount of time & money you spent developing it is rather irrelevant because you exchanged the right to control THIS COPY for a sum of money. Can we prevent our customers from making further copies of the pictures we’ve sold to them? Why should I have the right to veto what others can and cannot do with their own property?
Now as a society we can agree to give up certain rights to our own property in order to promote the progress of learning, hence why copyright was invented [see Statute of Anne & post].
Copyright is the limited time, limited suspension of the PEOPLE’S RIGHT to COPY.
With copyright, that right we all have, the right to exercise full control over our own property is TAKEN AWAY and given over to the copyright holders for their commercial exploitation thereof. (hence Copyright ‘Holders’. they HOLD your right to copy.)
Copyright is merely the ability to use the State’s branch of coercion to veto what your own customers can and cannot do with their own property. Falkvinge calls it a ‘monopoly’ because mechanically it is one. It is a monopoly on the Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V function for one particular piece of information. (history reveals copyright as coercive monopoly read your history books.) Even the US Supreme Court calls it that.
US Congress: “The granting of such exclusive rights [copyrights] under the proper terms and conditions, cofers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly.“