Intellectual property gives you a monopoly on that idea for a while… draw your own conclusions

When you sell a thing, and part of that sale and sale price includes an agreement to not copy that thing, but you do anyway; this is theft.

So breaking all contracts is theft?

Even exploitive ones?

Yes. Theft is breaking an agreement to not take other people's stuff. Otherwise its not an agreement, its a lie.

But how am I taking something from them if they still have it?

Why would you agree to an exploitive contract? If you don't agree, then don't say you agree to the terms.

Ideas are not scarce goods... private property only applies to scarce goods, when copying the owner has his share and I have mine... it may be as you say but it goes against the ANCAP philosophy, in any case it is only my humble opinion

You are taking something by violating the agreement to not copy it.

I am violating an agreement, I understand thar part, I do not agree with the fact that I am taking anything. Also I don't think it's an agreement if don't agree with it in the first place.

As an ancap, I believe the common ancap philosophy is wrong here. Contracts are central to all transactions. Most contracts are implicit, e.g. If you enter my store, you will not pocket things from the shelf and walk out without paying. I don't think the present system of copyright and patent law is not justified because it is redundant to individual contracts and makes litigation onerous. However the essence of protecting information with agreements is fully in harmony with the fundamental principals of free association and anarcho-capitalism.

Yes, then you are engaging in fraud by saying you agree but you don't agree and won't abide by the agreement.

It's the same "social contract" thing, when did I sign this contract?

I never said social contract. Now you are engaging in creating a strawman argument

I believe "intellectual property" makes art worse, an art student with a passion can make a better star wars movie than Disney, but we don't get to see it because Disney owns the story of "Luke Skywalker" what a load of bullshit.

But a pirate never agreed? You were just expecting them to agree.

The definition of pirate is someone that stole something. Are you justified accepting stolen goods?

Ok, you are founding your argument that a thief has rights over stolen goods?

You are being disingenuous. No student will make a better movie, because a movie is a plot, but also the work of thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars. No student has that, no matter how good are his ideas. Why would anyone risk millions if everyone can watch it for free? Also, there would be no R&D if people (companies are just that) didn't risk millions or billions. No new drugs, as manufacturing them has a negligible cost. No new robots, no new software nor new vehicles....don't get me started on aeroplane development costs.... I don't know about art, but in every other realm, people that say "copying is not theft are either lying or don't understand basic economics.

This is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. You're adding to the argument with more strawmen. Trademark is a law protecting impersonization, and I don't believe the validity of this law is part of this discussion.

Its a valid discussion to have, because some of the best minds seem to be confused about the concept of agreements.

I don't mean to be disingenuous nor do I mean to being up strawmen I guess it's on me that I can't put across my points well enough, so maybe I'll park this conversation until I can better articulate.