IP Legitimacy Debate

The problem is copyright, and intellectual property in general, it should not exist. Property is based on scarcity, IP actually restricts what one may do with their actual physical property.

Intellectual property isn't property (at least, it shouldn't be)

Intellectual property isn't really property -- it's a restriction on what others can do with their property.

intellectual property shouldn't exist.

Depends on whether you think IP is legitimate property. See the book "Against Intellectual Property" for one side.

Intellectual property rights are fundamentally not "good ol' property rights". Property rights exist because when you steal someone's car, you're depriving them of the usage of that car. If you steal the words from somebody's book, you're not preventing them from still reading it. In fact enforcement of intellectual property laws actually violates traditional property rights, as it interferes with people using their hardware property freely.

Intellectual "property" is not property.

Intellectual Property is a questionable idea to begin with...

There's no such thing as intellectual property. Copyright is a limited monopoly that the public gives to an author in exchange for an author enriching the public with his works. If the public is never to enjoy the full enrichment that comes from the work (such as being able to use it for the basis of other stories, the way we do with Shakespeare), then the intent of copyright is being perverted.

So-called "intellectual property" is not property. It cannot be stolen unless someone manages to deprive you of it. You do not own ideas, even ones you come up with yourself - you are merely given a temporary monopoly to encourage you to create more ideas. Or at least that was the deal. A deal that has been broken over and over again by extending the supposedly temporary monopoly to be longer than anyones lifetime. It has been broken by addition of technical means to further res