This episode (amongst other things) was discussing the 1800s when very few people owned land, but various laws still recognised the traditional rights of people living on the land to use the land (to poach for example).
At the time discussed only those who owned land (the "Landed gentry", about 3% of the population) could vote.
As a result, most new laws that were passed were to strengthen property law, so that those that owned land could keep it, and make lots of money while they were at it. What was previously legal under traditional access law (poaching, walking through private property) was made illegal, for no reason other than the fact the owners thought they could make money from what was previously given away for free.
This was the time before imprisonment as punishment. If you broke the law, usually you were hanged. Not particularly long after (decades) they decided that hanging was perhaps a little hash for some crimes, so they invented prisons.
Today I've been reading about the new push for intellectual property owners (in this case, American musicians being represented by their rights association, ASCAP, similar to Australia's APRA).
They're pushing for new laws to ensure their members are compensated for various new methods of consuming music (specifically streaming and downloading music, movies and TV shows).
To be honest, much of what they're discussing does actually need confirmation. Not necessarily more money, but confirmation. For example, what is "broadcasting", which counts as a "performance", and thus has a different fee, vs. a purchase which gains the rights owner a "mechanical" payment. Or even, should "broadcasting" count as a performance, given that a performance was always meant to be an actual performance, like a concert. Should it be possible to sign over your usual performance fee for a once-off fee (for example, selling your song to a movie, or as an advertising jingle?)
What reading these articles reminded of were those 1800s land owners desperately changing the laws to ensure they kept making money, even while the political and social landscape changed around them. They had control of the laws and they wanted to keep making money. There was nothing in the law changes that improved humanity as a whole, they existed purely so that those with money could keep making money.
We already have laws which will fine a person millions of dollars for downloading a couple of CDs worth of songs.
I hope, like in the 1800s, that "the people" eventually get a little uncomfortable with the extreme punishment dished out for relatively minor "property" crimes and demands the laws be changed.
Money isn't everything.