> Ownership is the right to do with your property whatever you'd like, provided what you do does not affect or threaten the property of others (including the property they have in their own persons)
Ownership doesn't intrinsically preclude you harming others. Ownership is about exerting exlusive control over property. If you own a gun, you can do whatever you want with it because you exert control over it and it's in your possession.
The part that precludes us from harming others is part of a separate legal framework. You also can't use your wood to build a fence around the forest, or a barracade to impede other people's movement. There is a lot more you aren't allowed to do with property then "affect or threaten the property of others "
So the fundamental issue is that you're conflating the two into a more narrow definition of ownership and then you're claiming IP "destroys the internal consistency of property rights in general"
_____________________________
As for "threshold pledge system"... The problem is it's a non-capitalistic mechanism that relies on the altruism of the wider population. Altruistic systems don't scale (see communism). Not to mention it rewords free-riders. If a bunch of people fund a movie, and then I come in and pirate it at the end, then I end up being better off than them (b/c I too get to see the movie and I also get to keep my money). This will probably lead to disenchantment.
I just can't believe that you think like a big budget movie like say the latest James Bond could be funded through a threshold pledge system and then distributed for free. It seems rather naiive