I see two basic types of intellectual property just as I see two types of physical property. There are contracts that arise from mutual agreements that are not binding on 3rd parties and then there are assertions backed by force. I have no problem with people agreeing to treat physical objects like they ought to be controlled by some person or group given some arbitrary set of conditions. The same goes with people agreeing to treat information as if it ought to be controlled by an individual or group although since information resides in peoples heads and in the objects they control it is a little more invasive of an agreement but so long as there is agreement then it works just fine.

However there are limitations to when I consider physical property to continue to be considered something that ought to be controlled by an individual or group. For instance if you initiate force against another then in my mind you lose all rights to property until that conflict is resolved. The same goes if you do not respect the property rights of others (if you dont make the agreement to see others as the ones who control their property then you dont get the same right for yourself) with intellectual property I put it even further down the list of priorities: if you dont agree to other peoples physical property and you dont agree to others freedom of aggression or their intellectual property of people who make the same agreement then you dont get it for yourself. For most people here I would think that wanting intellectual property rights for themselves is really not terribly important except for the rare occasion ("hey I'll tell you a secret if you promise not to tell" or "sign this NDA to find out the details of my business")
Something like music, software and other entertainment media ist more difficult to see how it would work because you can almost grantee that it will be exposed to people who never made the agreement and would never make the agreement for information to be treated like property, have no incentive to do so and every incentive to distribute the media. In this case a simple pragmatic approach of getting funding for your media before you put it out there into the world seems more reasonable.

I feel about as much sympathy for a media company having it work copied once it has distributed it as I do for someone who throws seeds into the wind and expects to own the land in which the seeds grow (actually starting to happen with genetically modified organisms and companies claiming the right through government to tell farmers how they can grow their crops once they have been contaminated)

As for organizations that pirate, my opinion of them varies. Some of them commit actual property rights violations in order to obtain pirated material (breaking into places to obtain it) and some break contracts to do so (movie theaters usually only permit people to use their services if people agree not to record) of course the enforcement of such contracts as exist now is a blanket violation of peoples property rights as taxation is used to fund the courts and police that enforce them so its more a state of nature than anything but in a free society where police and courts are private there would be pirating that is a violation of property rights or contract violation that would need to have its arbitration be figured out.