I’ve been having an argument with someone in the comments section of this post. So for his benefit, and that of others who may have missed the point of that post, I’ll try to lay it out logically and clearly.

Case 1:

Owner (A) has material property, valued to him at some quantity, which may or may not be the same as its acquisition cost. Person (B) decides that he wants said property and doesn’t want to pay for it. Because of its material nature, the only way for this to occur is for B to steal it from A.

He does so.

Now B has increased his wealth by the amount that he values said material property, and A’s wealth has been decreased by the cost of reproducing it (assuming that it’s not a priceless heirloom, in which case he’s been devastated).

Case 2:

Owner (A) has intellectual property, valued to him at some quantity, which may or may not be the same as its acquisition cost (the marginal cost, in this case, being zero). Person (B) decides that he wants said property and doesn’t want to pay for it, and would not under any circumstances. Because of its intellectual nature, this can occur by B making a copy of it.

He does so.

Now B has increased his wealth by the amount that he values said material property, and A’s wealth has not been decreased in any way.

Which is to say that, in case one, A has clearly suffered harm, and in case two, he has clearly not.

This argument has nothing to do with property rights, which is an utterly distinct issue. It is simply making a delineation between the two situations, and it has to do with whether or not the original owner has been harmed.

Some people have trouble seeing this, and claim, for some bizarre reason, that Case 1 and Case 2 are exactly equivalent. I contend that they are not, and to make such an argument is clearly, at least to me, absurd.