Hello99,
Although I am against copying, as I’ve stated here in numerous threads, I’ve never understood how there can be actual ownership and therefore actual gezel (with the exception of leasing agrements. You wrote to derszoger that he needs to provide a sevara why there would not be gezel on IP; I think that as none of the classic kinyonim are applicable to IP (and as you just wrote, neither are hilchos yerushah), a sevara needs to be provided to defend the idea of gezel of IP.
One posek I know of used to be mattir copying, because he could not fathom how there could be gezel on IP (he also rejected the t’nai on CD’s, although I don’t know what he held on leasing agreements), but he stopped being mattir when he clarified with R’ Dovid Feinstein that R’ Moshe indeed assered.
Again, I’m not challenging the psak, as it seems to be the opinion of the gedolei haposkim, I’m just trying to understand it.