I am following an interesting discussion (please also read the comments thread) on the question: is intellectual property itself unethical? Having worked in the media space for years, I have always been on the side - and I am still standing on this ground - that interlectual property needs to be protected in order to ensure artists' or inventors' creations. In my view this is an economical and not moral issue.

In the video below, David Koepsell makes an ethical case against intellectual property. It is a quite lengthy clip, it starts out slow and is somewhat dry. But it gave me some new insights and is really worthwhile to watch:

I try to summarize it in just a few sentences: He argues that if intellectual property is causing actual harm, then the laws of intellectual property by themselves are immoral. That means if by taking away intellectual property no direct harm is caused, then there is no moral issue. But if leaving them in place does cause harm, then that creates a moral issue. 

He then talks about the concept of "the commons", such as highway systems, and elaborates on different kinds. In some situations, allocation of resources is inefficient without a legal regulation. For example, individuals would claim land possession if a law would not institute such land as a national park. An another example is the highway system. This is what he calls "commons by choice", so scarce resources are better allocated by letting everyone share them.

But Koepsell argues that there is another type of commons, that cannot be enclosed and possessed outside of the law, such as your genes. He refers to this as "commons by necessity". He makes the point that the same logic cannot be applied here. For example, by making a choice to limit your rights to your own genes, you are creating harm which in itself is immoral.

In summary, I think it is worthwhile discussing what the net impact of intellectual property is: does it help to advance innovation or does it get in the way of innovation?