There is correctly priced labor, and overpriced labor. And then there are bitter labor that cannot face the competition. I don't post often, here, but honestly, I'm getting a bit tired of whiners with an exaggerated sense of entitlement. Decent programmers still earn enough dollars to buy cheap services from other labor groups that experience a lot more competition than the coders.

A programmer who never produces infinite loops is not programming. However, if he keeps trying to fix programming errors by buying more hardware, he is such a poor programmer, that it may be better if he does nothing.

The first part makes a very good point. If you consider the human brain a computer, simply seeing something that is copyrighted would infringe upon the copyright, which makes the copyright absurd in the first place. This will become a much more real problem if/when the human brain merge with technological hardware. They will deny you from filming with a camera in a cinema, and they may take off your google glasses (at some protest from you). But will they deny entrance to someone who has lost their eyes and had cybernetic replacements? And what if their cybernetic enhancements also involved memery enhancements? If such a development continues, it may become technically impossible to enforce copyright laws and software patents.

Are you trying to say that "ownership" and terriotorial behaviour by individuals are a very recent development in humans, or even a social construct? (Ie that all "natural" ownership would by by a group?) I would think that studying how fast a 1-year-old learns to say "mine" compared to "ours" would refute such a claim.... Sure, social status/power and ownership are linked in both humans and animals, but I would be quite surprised if we would go back 1 million years, and all stone tools in a group would be shared equally between the members of equal status in the group (for all such groups). I believe some level of ownership instinct would give a survival benefit even for quite primitive toolmakers, both on the individual and group level, as it would reduce waste. (If I owned the hand axe, it was also my responsibility to spend the energy to take care of and maintain it, as well as make sure to bring it whenever my group moved to another location.) Anyway, ownership behaviour seem to me to be quite related, whether they are claimed by an individual, a family, a company or a state. "Theft" from such an "owner" seem to be met with similar emotional responses across all such owner classes.

Ownership is a lot more than the right to deny use (and not always the right to deny use), and the "extensions of our body" argument is also flawed. The basis of "ownership" is our territorial instinct. If you move into my land (or speak to my woman), I will knock you in the head with my club. If I didn't do that, I would starve and have no offspring, so all people today descend from more or less territorial forefathers. "Property" is societies attempt at formalizing and rationalizing this instinct. Sometimes the rules we devise to formalize this are a bit flawed, and need adjustment. In particular, if we define something as property that means a lot more to the one that gets denied its use than the owner (such as slavery), it tends to meet opposition. Other things that are problematic to grant ownership for, include mathematical theorems, natural laws, DNA, "square objects with rounded corners", and (some will say) electronic texts. The limits of ownership will always be an ongoing discussion, and will sometimes need adjustment.