If the customer decides not to purchase it at that price, then his recourse his to purchase either a competing product or wait for the price to come down, not to steal it.
You are aware that the concept of intellectual property rights didn't even begin with the concept of a creator having monopoly rights over their creations. Instead the concept of government granted monopolies begun during the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1 with the East India Company came first. It wasn't until later that the concept of government granted monopolies was applied to intellectual goods. However, when the concept of government granted monopolies were applied to intellectual goods it was done so with the intention of maximizing the benefit of society by providing only enough incentive to encourage innovation not profits. Intellectual properties rights today have become completely divorced from their original intention of maximizing the commons due to the selfish pursuits of individuals and companies that have distorted the laws. Most of these distortions of the law weren't even introduced by those actually doing the inventing, but by heirs and assigns trying to establish and safeguard a constant source of revenue. That constant source of revenue has permitted many people to sit on their laurels instead of innovating.
Intellectual Property rights have been completely distorted from their original intent of encouraging innovation and maximizing benefit for society. Let me tell you who doesn't innovate: heirs and assigns. If anything, intellectual property rights have enabled a lot of people to make a living by not innovating.
My question to you is, for material that is not in the public domain, do you believe that the innovator has a right to determine at what price they should sell their product at? And if not, is that not dissuading innovation?
And the 64 million dollar question, if they have a right to sell their product without digital infringement, how can you prevent this, without some bill law SOPA or PIPA?
