Intellectual property is good. I consider it obvious that many intangible things are extremely valuable to our society and it’s important that the act of their creation is proportionally valuable.
False advertising is bad. If a media company misrepresents what they are selling, this is a clear breach of ethics and should not be tolerated.
Fair use is good. A group of friends or family should be allowed to share media without penalty.
Where I draw the line on “fair use” is when that media is sold for profit by someone who does not own the IP contained on it.
The concept of IP exists because without it you can’t own data– you can’t own words or sounds or pictures or programming code, because they are not physical things. You can own an optical disc, but any argument for “ownership” of the data on that disc relies on the concept of intellectual property, which dictates that the creator owns it and has the sole right to allow people to use it.
In the case of game software, what buying that disc gives you is use of the game data, which your hardware turns into a fun experience for you. Not ownership, use. The data on that disc does not and never did belong to you, and paying for access doesn’t give you the right to on-sell that access, because it’s not yours to sell.
Thinking in terms of “use” rather than ownership makes it easier to understand that buying a game or a movie or a book is and always has been a service– the service of the creator having created that IP.
We humans like to own things, and when it comes to IP, the media companies are all too willing to market the illusion of ownership. “Own it now on Blu-ray” is a tag line I pass every day in the window of the rapidly shrinking Blockbuster Video store near my workplace. So to be honest I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the companies who are surprised when consumers reject business models which restrict our access to something they have spent so many years training us to think we “own”.