Information can not exist independent of the media on which it's imprinted because it is a characteristic of the media on which it is imprinted.
When you speak, the information imprinted on your brain is converted to sound vibrations which are received through the auditory senses of others then interpreted by and imprinted on their brains. When you download music, you are imprinting digital information on a physical hard drive (which you own). When you paint a painting, you are imprinting information on a canvas (which you own). When you take a photograph, you are imprinting information on film (which you own). When you write a letter or draft a blueprint, you are imprinting information on paper (which you own).
Copying isn't theft; information isn't property.
For something to be property, it must be a scarce, rivalrous resource. For an act to constitute theft, it must deprive the rightful owner of a scarce, rivalrous resource of said resource without consent. Information can be copied infinitely without destroying , devaluing or depriving the creator of the original, therefore information is a non-scarce resource, thus information is not property and can not be owned. Some critics may impulsively object to this on grounds that they oppose plagiarism, but plagiarism is an issue of fraud rather than intellectual property, thus such an objection wouldn't be responsive to the case I've laid forth here.
Non-scarce resources can't be owned.
Property rights are established to avoid conflict over scarce, rivalrous resources. Property rights are not established to prevent conflict over the characteristics of scarce, rivalrous resources. You can not own the characteristics of something independent of the thing itself. You do not own the color blue just because you own a blue car. Likewise, you can not own the patterns of information imprinted on your computer's hard drive just because you own the computer. You own the hard drive. You own the computer. You do not own the color "white" or "black" just because the computer is white or black. You do not own the color "green" just because the internal circuit boards are green. You do not own binary 1's and 0's just because they are imprinted on the hard drive. To insist otherwise is to state that you own the computer twice. It's double dipping.
It's also a declaration of intent to physically trespass against the bodies and actual physical property of other people by preventing them from changing the patterns imprinted on their own property, or by expropriating their property if they do. What is euphemistically called "intellectual property protection" is really just a government protected monopoly on patterns of information which, as demonstrated, don't even meet the prerequisites necessary to be considered property.
Proponents of "intellectual property" protection are nothing more than monopolists who want to use the force of government to protect themselves from competition for profit.
About the Author
I'm Jared Howe! I'm a Voluntaryist hip hop artist and professional technical editor/writer with a passion for Austrian economics and universal ethics. You can catch my podcast every Friday on the Seeds of Liberty Podcast Network.
