“The expiration of “intellectual property” isn’t the only reason why it’s not real property. The very nature of the existence of copyright means that it can’t be treated like real property. There’s a very real distinction between copyright violation and theft. Real property can be stolen. Copyrighted material can’t be. Physical media that bears a copy of copyrighted material can be stolen, but the charge is for the theft of the physical object, which can be property, rather than for the violation of the copyright.”

No one ever said IP was real property (or at least I didn’t). That’s an indefensible claim…because it’s wrong.

That, however, doesn’t mean that it isn’t property at all. You’re right when you make the distinction between real property and intellectual property in that the former can be stolen and the later can’t. However, that distinction is much less important than you give it credit for. Whether I steal an object belonging to you or infringe your copyright and reduce your profits, I’m gaining something to your detriment. Jefferson’s famous quote about lighting your flame by my taper aside, there are similarities as well as differences.

To say that because infringement isn’t theft because IP isn’t property is to assume your conclusion. You’ve identified a difference between real and intellectual property, yes. But again, no one was saying they were exactly the same.

“
When copyright expires, barring retroactive extensions by Congress, it cannot be exclusively retained by one individual or corporation or trust anymore.”

Yes, this is also true. But you fail to explain why this means that it isn’t property. A lot of real or personal property is not forever. We often consume things that we own, like food. Does that mean that we don’t own the food we buy at the grocery store simply because it isn’t permanent or (often) transmitted by will?

You’ve once again assumed your conclusion by drawing a distinction. Again, no one said IP was EXACTLY like real property. If it was, there would be no need for a distinction.

“It’s not artificial that so called “intellectual property rights”/government-granted monopolies expire. The expiration of the monopoly is a natural trait since the inception of such artificial legal constructs and their duration has only been artificially inflated by Congress to protect, among other supposed assets, Mickey Mouse.”

I don’t know what you were trying to prove here but I don’t think it worked. As you seem to agree, the right itself is “artificial”, right? So, as much of intellectual property is statutory creation, those same statutes determine the life of those rights. The same statute that “artificially creates” the right “artificially ends” the right. If this is wrong, then you haven’t made a good case out for why. either way I think this is a largely unimportant point that isn’t worth arguing any further…

As far as the taxation ans eminent domain arguments, I wasn’t too sure what you were getting at.

I know you said you’ve read the literature. Maybe you should read it again, or different articles. All you’ve done is assume two conclusions and attack a silly distinction between “artificial” and “real” rights (whatever that’s supposed to mean considering real and personal property rights are also determined by law, albeit usually common law in conjunction with statute…)