Are you serious? You're arguing that because you had to invest in a computer and perform labor to click a button that you created the movie you copied?
Maybe you want that to be an argument or you just came up with it and are seeing if it sticks to the wall, but it don't. It's absurd.
Well I certainly create a lot of copies of many things all the time. My computers do it automatically and effortlessly. I don't claim authorship though. And you know that other people who copy things don't claim authorship either except for the few frauds which are not the topic here.
I do find it weird to use the term "property" for things that can be copied infinitely. Right now a lot of laws are created to sustain this economy. I'm not convinced it's worth it. So please don't act like these laws are something natural! We're creating them and we have to discuss which parts are sensible.
Don't be absurd. I'm not claiming that I created the movie, just that one physical copy. Obviously the abstract pattern of bits comprising the movie existed beforehand—but that bit pattern isn't property, and even if it were treated as such it isn't affected in any way by my actions. It was my labor which caused my computer to encode that pattern into my own storage medium to create the copy, and it is that act involving only my own labor and property for which the copyright holder is demanding payment.
Maybe you want that to be an argument or you just came up with it and are seeing if it sticks to the wall, but it don't. It's absurd.