Yes. 

My soul is non-physical but it is my property.

My tax return, on my computer, is my property.

I haven't looked at the library subforum, so I can't really comment on that but if books are out of print, which so many pre-VII books are, then a digital copy of them is completely fine.

It is clear than that something non-physical can be property.

I have seen relatively new and still in print books myself.

.
Your soul (and body) IS you. Not something you own.

I stand corrected.
It was a poor example.  Thank you.

I stand corrected.
It was a poor example.  Thank you.

I know that was only one example you gave. With regard to the other (tax return), I would concede that a physical copy of a tax return is eligible for ownership, just as any book would be. 

But when digitized, all you have is the information itself. You certainly don't own the information, even if you have a certain interest in it (which you certainly do).

I continue to maintain that intellectual property doesn't exist. I don't necessarily think this means absolutely anything goes, but I definitely would recommend the OP relax and go ahead and read the books he's found without any moral concern. 

I know that was only one example you gave. With regard to the other (tax return), I would concede that a physical copy of a tax return is eligible for ownership, just as any book would be.

But when digitized, all you have is the information itself. You certainly don't own the information, even if you have a certain interest in it (which you certainly do).

I continue to maintain that intellectual property doesn't exist. I don't necessarily think this means absolutely anything goes, but I definitely would recommend the OP relax and go ahead and read the books he's found without any moral concern.

The information is stored in a drive just like information is stored in a book. The actual difference is only in ease of reproducibility.

Regarding the book in question, Who Shall Ascend, I will not be reading it because I believe it could be theft to do so.

I'm interested in your thoughts about intellectual property, M.

Using books as an example, usually the fundamental reason that we buy a book is for the contents, what the author can teach us, not the paper, glue, and ink (though, of course, the materials are a component of the price). What we are really paying for is a service rendered. We are paying the author for his expertise the same as we do a skilled doctor, lawyer, mechanic, plumber, etc.

Exactly, I think the physical aspect of property is largely irrelevant, what counts is that you defraud someone of deserved pay for their labour.

I'm interested in your thoughts about intellectual property, M.

Using books as an example, usually the fundamental reason that we buy a book is for the contents, what the author can teach us, not the paper, glue, and ink (though, of course, the materials are a component of the price). What we are really paying for is a service rendered. We are paying the author for his expertise the same as we do a skilled doctor, lawyer, mechanic, plumber, etc.

.
There are a lot of related, sometimes overlapping pieces in a discussion like this. Intellectual property (specifically) is what I object to, because intellectual property is a concept based on ownership of ideas straight up. I can go into greater detail why, if you have more questions or objections, but for now I will just put it simply: there is nothing new under the Sun, and all truth is God's truth. Who dare presumes to own it? 
.
Copyright is not the same as intellectual property (necessarily). Copyright simply gives a publisher a temporary right to monetize a particular composition under certain conditions. Copyright is often exploitative, but I don't object to it in principle. Same with patents. 
.
I do not have a problem with the idea of mental labor, not a problem with compensating people for mental labor. But never as the owner of intellectual property. 

Some thoughts on a topic that has come to bear in my own life, and that is discussed in this thread:

First, if you buy a book second-hand (Goodwill, used bookstore, etc.), the author has already been paid for the book, so you do the author no injustice.  Indeed, I have heard of people who do not wish to enrich the author of a bad book, but still need to use the book for legitimate research purposes or some similar reason, deliberately seeking to buy it second-hand, so they will not enrich the author.

Downloading the copy of something I already own, either first purchase or second-hand, also seems to pose no injustice.  I am merely converting it into a format that is easier to use.  For instance, we are reading Tolkien's The Hobbit in homeschool literature class.  My son has a new paper copy from a retail bookstore, and I have a cheap second-hand paperback version for my own use.  However, many evenings, I prefer to be able to read it on my computer, so I downloaded a free copy from a high school English honors program online.  Tolkien's estate has suffered no injustice.

A book that is out of print also seems to be fair game for copying or downloading.  If it is out of print, then the author has been enriched all that he is ever going to be enriched.  If he wants more people to pay for rights to read the book, then he needs to arrange for more copies to be published.

Works in the public domain are entirely fair game.