Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 186.

The Great IP Debate: Stephan Kinsella vs. Alexander Baker  Liberty.me (July 8, 2014). From the Liberty.me description:

Intellectual property is one of the most controversial topics among libertarians. Can ideas be legitimate forms of property? Do the benefits of intellectual property laws, such as providing incentives for inventors, overcome the negatives, such as benefiting large corporations relative to newcomers in industry? Stephan Kinsella argues ideas are not and cannot be property, and that the negatives of IP easily outweigh the positives: IP amounts to a grant of government monopoly. Alexander Baker counters with a theory entitled “Intellectual Space” which argues that intangible goods (songs, movies, software, games) display all the same characteristics (homesteadable, useful, costly, scarce, rivalrous) as physical goods (bicycles, factories, diamonds), thus requiring property rights to eliminate conflict over their use.

Related:

KOL 040 | INTERVIEW: Alexander Baker: Discussion with a Pro-Intellectual Property Libertarian

KOL 038 | Debate with Robert Wenzel on Intellectual Property

KOL079 | “Federalist Society IP Debate (Ohio State)” (2011)

KOL076 | IP Debate with Chris LeRoux

An IP challenge for Alexander Baker (Louigi Verona)

Why Intellectual Property is Not Real Property (Michael Mogren, Liberty on the Rocks—Denver)

Baker's most recent ruminations on IP."Ace" Baker will never figure out IP. He keeps trying over and over again to explain what he thinks about it, and why it may be justified. Sad. My comment: "When do you think you'll finally figure this stuff out? Let me tell you--never. You are doing what I tried to do from about 1990 to 1994--I tried to find a good argument for IP. I kept stumbling. Finally, after having read and thought enough, I realized why I was unable to do this. Because, you know, IP is totally and utterly unjustified. I was young enough to admit my previous error and to change course. I fear you are too old now and determined to argue for IP no matter what. This is tendentious, and sad."