This is over-simplistic. Physical property has the intrinsic concept of having (you have it - now I take and and I have it, and you do not have it). The value i

This is over-simplistic. Physical property has the intrinsic concept of having (you have it - now I take and and I have it, and you do not have it). The value is in the having, and the having is mutually exclusive to some degree. Not only that, but the transference of having has a non-negligible expense. Intellectual property does not have this same set of properties to the same degrees, and it is not useful to equate the two implicitly without attempting to account for this obvious and monumentally large difference. What is left is the realm of pure money theory, which certainly has real effects and is worth considering/debating. But it has nothing to do with "that's my property", except in the legal context, which is static at any given point in time and can not be argued (i.e. we can't argue whether it is illegal to distribute IP without permission - it's a fact).