I don't really think its a fair analogy here as we are not discussing material objects that physically degrade over time such as a house or car.
I've heard this argument several times...games DO degrade, albeit in a different way. They degrade in the sense that they become obsolete. Houses don't become obsolete. Really, cars don't either.
For example, a 1959 Cadillac Eldorado convertible sold new for $7,401, which would be about $57,000 in today's money. Yet these cars routinely trade hands today for upwards of $200,000, and can be driven pretty as you please on the road today. Games, by contrast, are frequently unplayable two years after release. They lose any online support, updates, and don't even get me started on those stupid one-time codes.
Apparently that's their excuse for the higher licensing rates.
It's the same as the TV networks and Aereo, and Megaupload for that matter. It fundamentally comes from the entitlement complex of the entertainment industry hating for anyone to make money they don't get a slice of, whether they deserve it or not.
Except they can't in this case, since Warner Bros. doesn't actually know your identity.
These notices are submitted to via DMCA to the ISP, who then forward it to the customer associated with the IP address. Short of attempting to subpoena the ISP for the identity of the subscriber, they actually have no way of knowing the identity of the alleged infringer unless they attempt to make the payment.
In other words, ignoring it in this case would be the only sensible thing to do.
Then don't publish it. You seem to want it both ways: You want to claim "ownership" of a creative work, yet you also expect it to be propagated and become a part of national (if not global) culture. Trouble is, no one owns culture. It's yours, or it's the world's. Pick one.
"It teaches practically everyone in the world—sources, liaison services—that America can’t keep secrets."
Nor should it, beyond basic military intelligence and short-term activities. We frequently beat our chests in this country and bill ourselves as the "most free nation on Earth," but if we want to live up to that, we need the most transparent government, and the most well-informed public. Such programs as the one Snowden exposed do not aid in that goal, and should be exposed accordingly.
Like it or not (and clearly you don't), the money being made available is the product of IP, if the IP is violated then that money is less available.
Says who? Stupid threats like this one from the IP commission basically prevent governments from experimenting with IP-free economies, so you have little evidence to suggest they don't work. On the other hand, I could point to a few thousand years of human history prior to the Statute of Anne to suggest that they do.