You're speaking like a "conservative" screaming "government intervention" when their leadership propagandizes, or "liberal" screaming that the rich are behind a nefarious scheme to put down the poor when told by their masters (while those opposed are advocating eliminating some kind of thing that actually harms the poor the most). But the worst part is, you're using libertarian rhetoric to do it, and injecting emotion-laden buzzwords to get a reaction ain't thinkin'.
In the US context, "[...] government-enforced monopolies on ideas and methods" happens to pertain to PA-TENTS, , a separate class of objects altogether.
Access to copyrighted works recently-made with little merits or contribution to the advancement of useful arts and sciences, in any way, is neither a public good nor a public right; they are copy-righted, by their creators, to extract a return for their efforts and basically because they want to, and nobody really actually disagrees with this (openy and publicly); personally I'm fine with monopolizing-away Hanna Montana bullshit. (If you want to see how television effects children, take a sample of the Disney-raised little princesses that watched that shit over the last six or seven year.)
But vast collections of facts, cleverly arranged and not really a creative act (though courts like to find, wherever possible, how it could possibly be creative)? Nope on that. (I'm looking at various kinds of 'scholarly' works.)
But patents should never be granted on facts of nature or mathematics or merely exploitative or derivative consequences: the supreme court never pretended they (or their isomorphisms, ideas and methods) were patentable, on the grounds that anything so fundamental to knowledge, science work, and being human, violates and does violence to men's natural rights...until they not only stopped caring about those but even questioned that they exist (even the Conservatives: pick-up Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America" and you'll find a quasi-libertarian Authoritarian 'as-long-as-process-is-followed'" statist).
Movies however belong to the domain of copyright. And these days, they're barely even artistic, thinly-veiled engagements of the most prurient interests; appeals to emotion; some either substituting a identity-less character so you can step-in (a well-known trick to make something explode in popularity because the consumer feels as though everything is happening directly to them) or celebrations of those with personality cults (hence, no real acting anymore: just people playing themselves with a different name and context).
And then there is that useful distinction that stands quite well: idea vs. expression. Now if the optimal and only expression, such as a scientific formula mathematically derived, then no it's not...copyrightable (a different class); but any of the material "pirated" in this scenario isn't of that nature. It was just appropriated by all with the chance to see what they want, when they want...
Note however, I already appropriate (for those who used the link) for fair-use, though only through reference, a copyrighted work: it's called fair-use.
But...if you were thinking before you posted, you would know that they are separate issues, that there are methods of critiquing copyright, but shouting "government-enforced monopolies" and sleighting with "ideas and methods" would get-up the cheering of the horde here because they're near-and-dear words that play to certain prejudices...whereby you poison the well [of thinking] before it can commence.
Speaking of the Supreme Court: it is to such stupidity, whether libertarian, Conservative, Progressive, etc., that words by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes are wise, that is, that men should think not in words but in things.
