Early in the interview you mentioned an example involving the production of swords in a factory, where the factory worker producing the sword doesn’t own the result. This example doesn’t really go one way or the other, since you could explain it in two ways. The factory owns the material and creating something with it doesn’t add new property rights; he’s simply selling his labor. Or, the factory worker does have some ownership of the result, because he created it, and is selling this ownership to the factory. The latter would of course imply that even if he started producing shields, the factory would either have to pay him for them, or he’d get to keep them.

I couldn’t help noticing how much things like “take”, “steal”, “rip off” were used, even though nothing was taken, stolen, or ripped off. Maybe it’s just me, but I think that any discussion of property rights must clarify these words and what they imply, and why they are inappropriate when discussing things which cannot be taken, stolen, or ripped off. Every one of these implies that something will turn up missing from the victim’s possessions, yet in all cases the victim will find everything intact. The above words could of course apply to one’s potential market, but that isn’t something one owns or can make claims of loss of when it changes.

Earlier in the interview you took an approach of examining how the laws came to be, and what inconsistencies there might be. I like this approach in some ways because it first requires a person to imagine a world without IP laws, how they might come into being, and other ways of achieving the same goals (assuming they are to meet a goal, rather than a fundamental right that is merely being codified). There is a freedom of thinking and less of a need to be entirely practical which might allow major inconsistencies to be more apparent.

Later the interview went in the direction of detectability of violations and proper application of the laws. I used to focus on these myself, before I understood how the laws are unjust in principle, even assuming that all violations are perfectly detected and the laws perfectly applied. I think it’s good if you make it clear, as you did, that your objection is to the principles behind the laws, not the practical matter of applying them as they’re written, and avoiding cases where a person appears to have violated them but really hasn’t.