>From a historical perspective, why is the notion of intellectual property any less legitimate than the notion of real property? In both cases, we are granting

>From a historical perspective, why is the notion of intellectual property any less legitimate than the notion of real property? In both cases, we are granting to a private concern the exclusive right to exploit something that used to be in the commons. The difference is as clear as day. Now matter how much you exploit an intangible good, you cannot deplete it. It's not scarce, so it makes no sense to hand anyone a monopoly over it. Also, land ownership can be questioned as well. It's most often justified by reciting the Tragedy of the Commons, but private ownership isn't the only solution you could apply to the problem it describes (depletion of a shared resource), but I digress.