Interesting, but I'll counter and say it is, because there is only so much land. It doesn't matter any way because land cannot be copied like an mp3. Also I cannot trespass upon your mp3 and deprive you of a portion of its use.

The only way I can see a parallel to stealing is this:

- X pays Y to make you an mp3 in the future. - X makes the mp3. - Y is your friend and shows you the mp3 before it gives it to Y. - You copy it, and sell it to X before Y did at a lower price, or simply give it to X. - Now X doesn't want to pay Y any more.

but that's why contracts exist, so that X would have to pay Y anyway.

Of course the notion of property itself is an artifice, what makes an apple yours other than the fact you are holding it and no one is actively trying to take it from you--but physical property cannot be copied in the same way "imaginary" property can.

> If you are arguing that there is something inherently wrong with using legal systems and implied threat of violence to extract fees for the use of services you have made available to the public

Not arguing that. I am arguing that using the legal system to punish X for downloading an mp3 might be wrong, because that action has not harmed nor deprived the creator of the mp3 of anything e0xcept vague "might-happen" things that aren't based on explicit contract-like agreements.

The point is that property law is based around enforceable exclusivity of rights, not around deprivation of use (and making a copy available for free does deprive copyright owners of some portion of their ability to use it as a revenue stream) and contrary to the suggestion up front both intellectual and physical property involve surveillance and [implied] use of violence in order to turn commons into a scarce resource which can be charged for.