Well this is the last in this series of posts. Not because there isn't more to say, there's plenty. But it's getting tiresome picking through these arguments, most of which are rather weak. But there is one last point I must pick up on since  it's highly relevant to a lot of stuff that goes on and  it illustrates quite nicely the confusion that arises from having a simplistic notion of ownership (private property).
I don't think ideas can be owned if you consider ideas distinct from a medium because ideas cannot exist without the medium. Medium is the only thing you can own with regards to ideas (your brain, hard drives, DVDs etc.).
So if someone works for years writing a book, composing a piece of music, designing a piece of software, or making a scientific discovery, they are entitled to no return for their labour? While if someone puts up a fence around a piece of land, even if they have no use for it, their property rights are unquestionable?
Of course its very convenient for those of us who don't want to pay for our music and our software to believe this, but is it justice? I don't think so.
The Free Software movement doesn't fall into this trap. This is the importance of the 'Free as in speech, not as in beer' slogan. That is why Free Software always comes with a license. Rules you have to obey. Freedom isn't doing what you like, regardless of anyone else. It is about respecting other people's rights, as you expect them to respect yours.
And on that note I will finish. Thanks to all for a stimulating, if occasionally frustrating, discussion.