IP here means "IP laws". Access to the source is a completely different issue. You don't need IP laws to protect your source: just don't distribute it.
Well, the links you pointed to are for fairly old versions of Windows, and they are on a pirate site, rather than any old site that chooses to host them in the US. Is Mac OS there in its entirety? How about Oracle? DB2 from IBM?
Look at the availability of Linux source code compared to Mac OS X. It's everywhere.
In terms of proof and evidence, no one can really "prove" anything without actually experiencing the counterfactual world. You can't prove that MacOS X code would not be everywhere, for instance, just as I can't prove that it would be.
The best we can do is look for evidence that suggests how things might go.
What about violating software licenses? I guess the restrictions of the GPL are moot then. I can just do whatever I want as I'm really not depriving anyone of anything they didn't already have.
Yes, the restrictions of the GPL would be moot if there were no copyright.
Treating source code as intellectual property is exactly what spawned GPL in the first place, as it is a "hack" that exploits the nature of software licensing.
That's not true. The GPL wouldn't be unnecessary, it would cease to work. The GPL relies just as much on copyright laws to work as does proprietary software. Something that is disallowed with the GPL is taking the source code, making a modification, compiling it, and then only distributing the binary. There is nothing that prevents this but copyright law.
A correct statement would be that the BSD or MIT licence would be unnecessary (except for their clauses that you have to include the copyright notice with your modified program).
It was a bit of a rambling point, but relates to the double-standard I see often applied. Terms like "piracy" and "stealing" aren't applicable because there's no physical good (although there's hardly any ambiguity over what's being discussed) and no one is being deprived of anything. But, hey, we need the GPL to ensure everyone shares everything and we need to go after those that violate the GPL. Although, quite arguably, the same logic could be applied: it's not stealing, I'm not taking anything you don't already have, and I don't need to share because I wasn't going to anyway, but maybe my friend will hear about it and contribute a patch to make your project better! [Please forgive the liberal use of pronouns.]
So if someone did get access to your source and data, by whatever means, it'd be fine to spread it at will?
Not if they're bound by contract OR if they conspired with someone who was. In other cases, yes. But what we think of whether it's "fine" or not is irrelevant: it'll happen anyway (try looking for Norton source code on TPB). What it matters is whether we want to fund laws to fight windmills.
And for that matter, why should there be information security laws if there's no intellectual property?
There are many laws under that "banner". What laws do you mean?
If you mean Data Protection, those are essentially mandatory contract terms. Regardless of whether they should exist or not, they're very different, because you're only bound by them if you enter in a contract (implied or not) with the person or company providing you with the data.
Whether that data is "property" or not is irrelevant.
