Comment: Yes, we agree your head is rather finite.

"If you shoot it, it is no more. I'm dead. You have permanently destroyed what was unarguably not yours to destroy."

No kidding. Like that wasn't the point I was making. Property rights are not absolute -- they must be balanced with other rights -- different types of rights, and the rights of other people. My rights to use my gun as I see fit have to be balanced with your rights to keep your head free of any new holes.

"You are presuming that information and physical property can be treated the same way"

I'm presuming no such thing, and I will ignore the bits of your post derived from this straw-man. (There are similarities and differences. You are only pointing to immaterial differences upon which my viewpoint does not depend.)

"I cannot steal information from you."

And where did I ever use the word theft or steal?

I am talking about unenlightened-self-interest (of the "information should be free" variety, with no regard to how that impacts the creation of future works), breach of contract (in the case of copyright where promises are made but are then violated), and the economic problems associated with both of those.

"After I have communicated any information to somebody else, nothing changes"

So, if you have a contract with someone (say a prospective employee) that says if they leak your secrets they will be liable for damages (lost profits), and they agree to that contract, and then they leak your secrets and it results in economic damages, your stance is what? That the contract was null and void? Tough titties? You shouldn't have hired any employees if you wanted to keep your secrets?

"I have no right to tell others what they may or may not do with an unownable infinite resource."

Copyright and patent laws are in a sense not about the information that already exists -- they are primarily about the information which is yet to be created, information which may not be created if there is no market for it. And that information (for any given time period) is most assuredly finite. I.e., the issue isn't how many times a single bit of information can be copied, but how much new information is being and will be created. Limited monopolies on "recently"-created information, with the promise that information created in the future will likewise come with such limited monopolies, provides an incentive for the creation of new information. This is just as physical property rights, which grant a monopoly of use/rent/sale to individuals, provide an incentive for the creation and improvement of physical properties.