Capitalism is not about enriching anyone, it's about being free to do whatever you want with your resources.
Free software developers use their resources to enrich society (and I applaud their work). Mark Zuckerberg uses his resources to enrich himself. Both are being capitalistic, as long as they don't steal or kill (I'm sorry, Hans Reiser). They freely decide who to work for.
Even though Wikipedia copyright is nominally owned by the respective writer of each individual edit, the fact that it's licensed as copyleft allow anyone to treat it as a public good an benefit from something that you don't own.
See a framework like the Universal Basic Assets (UBA)[1] manifesto: it distinguishes between Private assets, Public assets, and Open assets - each having different roles and expectations in relation to society and how each resource can be exploited.
Trying to reduce everything to XIX century economical and political concepts is limiting in terms of discourse; we have acquired much better understanding of society-wide dynamics since then.
Conflating real (material) property with false, intellectual "property" is one of the biggest lies that have been fed upon our society.
I approve the efforts of Creative Commons and other initiatives to get around the sick copyright system. But I don't believe in their premise of "commons" because it implies a dependence in a political system or society at large deeming things as commons.
IMHO the biggest lie of our society is not property about physical vs intellectual goods, but the ideology that applies the same concept of "property" to the gadgets you can keep in your pocket and you can keep control personaly, and equate it to the large multinational company encompassing the work of thousands of people on several continents. They simply don't have the same behavior nor expectations, and yet somehow we're supposed to apply the same legal framework - in order to uphold the decisions made by the few people who are in control of the large organisation.
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."
Classically free software works more like a gift economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
No capitalist society ever worked without a state that enforces rules and social constructs (such as private property or contracts).
Simple example of how simply talking about (some abstract notion of) freedom misses this: A gift based (ideas) economy could work without a state enforcing copyright. A capitalist (ideas) economy requires a state enforcing copyright.
No. Copyright has nothing to do with capitalism. In a completely capitalistic system, there would be no intellectual "property".
If you read the founders of right libertarian (pure capitalist) thought, the whole system is based around freedom. And property is justified based on the fact that it's necessary for freedom. Intellectual "property" doesn't enhance freedom in any way, to the contrary.
Granted, Marx created the term 'capitalism' to refer to the private ownership, and he conveniently bonded that private ownership to for-profit operation. But there can be ownership that's not for profit, and libertarian theory considers owning things without operating them for profit a perfectly acceptable stance.
Marx doesn't say anything about copyright or intellectual property, as far as I know.
Some schools of thought use some weird notion of freedom to derive some abstract structure that has never been tried anywhere and claim it has some hypothetical properties. You want to call that "true capitalism".
I like theory, I do theory, but the post was talking about existing social systems within which we operate. Your private definition of "true capitalism" has nothing to do with that system.
Nor does it have anything to do with the accepted use of the term capitalism. E.g. in state capitalism [1]. Therefore it is a bad definition that hinders clear communication, and you have failed to convince me to use it.