OSNews

I'm strongly opposed to so-called "intellectual property" by principle, because I think it amounts to a legal monopoly and, as such, a violation of physical property of monopoly breakers. Make no mistake, some of the most radical defenders of private property, the market and the right of rich people to keep every cent they have earned are also against at least some forms of "IP". Speaking of entitlements, who said an artist or engineer is entitled to tell others (who didn't sign a contract with him) how to use their property just because they are using it in a way he thought of first? For instance, you overheard a tune, or you were told a story, and you write your own variant. Same thing for an invention. I know, most actual piracy involves something like a contract violation by one customer (the ripper), but of course contracts are not binding for third parties, and IP is not based on contract law.

Also, not all IP is the same; for instance, copyright only restricts the right to copy, not independent invention, like patents do. This sure makes copyright less vicious, but since it also covers modified copies, once you have heard of a tune or a movie, you can be accused of copying it just for writing something vaguely similar.

Nonetheless, I agree with much of your post. No one is entitled to getting something from others just because they want it badly (they "need" it), and the money you earned in honest trade is yours, no matter how rich you already are. I'm all for changing the law and letting everyone play by the new rules, not for looking the other side when the victim is rich.