@jaredhowe Your view is that information can be infinitely copied without devaluation, right? Ok. I think Intellectual Property could be more similar to physical object than your position admits. Both intellectual and static property require resources for a manufacturing process (time, energy, money) yes? They both must be accepted by the public as something useful and therefore valuable/worth resource (time, energy, money) yes?

Moving forward:

"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.">

Information has a creator. I like how your think. That mean's that information is derived from someone. So, the design plan for the Tesla Model 3 is intellectual property just as the Schrodinger wave-proportion formula is intellectual property. Both are derived from prior information on the characteristics of components, which are derived from prior information on the characteristics of their components. Information does not exist without further application of the derived information. Otherwise, the same information circulates, repeats, useless so not a resource, and non-scarce so not in demand.

The clock is reset and ownership arises when someone invents further application - a novel formula, novel tech, novel artistic interpretation (which I would not view simply as more information as the information application of art is to combine and synthesize new information representations). If Einstein published his proof of special relativity, then a ridiculous person copied it down, and walked around showing the people who knew Einstein derived it, claiming that it was his, it would be entirely un-specific, un-valuable, possible psychotic behavior (but who really knows?).

No one claims to own raw information. It's just a result. They claim to own the application of information. Novel application of information is in fact scarce (observe the platform hosting our now metaphysical dialogue), it is extremely valuable and thus rivalrous under the condition that it's extremely useful - also classifying it as a resource.

No one own's the information of Polaroid picture, but the information is captured, and therefore wouldn't exist, without application of prior information - the camera itself. A picture is a result of a camera. Because the picture wouldn't exist without the camera, we can discern it as a characteristic of the camera, and therefore property of the camera, which is the manufacturers until the completion of purchase, at which time the information application (camera) & resulting information is released into your ownership - hence why photographs taken on a rented camera are considered legal property of the owner unless released.

In short, the form of information you're arguing can't be owned only exists in fundamental cosmic forces - which only crazy people claim to own. You're arguing a point that 1) No one is disagreeing with and 2) Has nothing to do with the concept of intellectual property. And good luck telling someone with a god complex that they can't do something.

Respect for tackling the issue.

Jos