How is a song different from a bicycle? From the standpoint of property rights, they should be the same. Both consist of a design and an implementation, of information and material. In both cases, it makes sense for us to own the physical, contestable, rivalrous object, while we may not own the intangible design knowledge sufficient to copy it. While a society could create a mechanism for owning pure knowledge, we should not call such a society free. However, that does not mean that creators must labor for free. The debate between Stephan Kinsella and Alexander Baker inspired me to describe my own reasons for rejecting copyright. Here they are.

Everything has tangible and intangible aspects.
Part of a song is pure idea, but that idea needs a mind to contain it. Once it exists in a mind, that mind can play it on instruments, or write sheet music, sing, hum, etc. People can record sounds as computer files, tapes, vinyl records, etc. Everywhere the idea exists, it will express itself in some physical medium.
Identically, a bicycle exists first as an idea in a mind, and later takes shape as CAD files, blueprints, specifications, factory production layouts, and finally as a physical bicycle. The same idea takes on different forms. From observing the result, a person with sufficient skill can make a copy.
Technological change over time has made the job of imitating objects less a case of artisan’s skill and more a case of automation. The knowledge of how to play a song or build a bicycle has moved from the minds of makers to their tools, records, and automated processes. As technology changed, it made some old business models obsolete, and enabled new ones.

Is copyright moral?
Persons arguing for copyright make a simple and persuasive case. Content creators create beneficial goods, and copying without paying is stealing. I should respond with an equally simple idea, and I hope more persuasive. My experience, knowledge, and understanding of information is mine, and telling me I can’t think a thought or sing a song is tyranny. It is fair to ask me to pay for new information, for being taught, for conversation, or for the performance of a song. But what I do with the knowledge I gain from that experience is mine, because it is part of my memory, part of my mind.
Moral questions do not depend on time, place, or the identity of the moral agent. If copyright is a moral question, who violated the rights of all those creators who lived before copyright existed? Why don’t scientists’ and mathematicians’ intellectual creations qualify for copyright? If it makes sense to own some kinds of raw information, why not these others?

Is copyright practical?
From a practical standpoint, copyright requires too many rules, too many mechanisms for monitoring compliance and punishing infringement. Perhaps creators would feel less inspired in an environment without copyright, and so produce less content, or perhaps another business model can replace what was lost. But clearly, the cost of the copyright regime outweighs the alternative. For copyright to work, certain actions and thoughts must be treated as crimes. Copyright enforcers must closely monitor content consumers, because otherwise infringement is too easy and tempting. Because a copyrightless system requires no monitoring or enforcement at all, no legislation, no judges or juries, no lawyers, no law enforcement officers, no industry executives, no bankrupt grannies, we know the cost ratio of copyright over no copyright: infinity.
A song and a bicycle resemble each other, when viewed from the standpoint of property rights. Each can be copied and the physical copies can be owned. But artificial enforcement mechanisms should not prevent you from learning from the free flow of ideas and information and putting that knowledge to use, including copying a thing, manufacturing goods, or playing songs. Copyright has always been a state-sponsored scam. Copyright does not belong in a society where persons own their thoughts.