"Intellectual Property" a Violation of Real Property
Unless you really want to believe in something you know is a lie you probably wont be inclined to believe people who express inconsistent ideas.
Free Software or Open Source Software have been typically attacked by people who do appear to believe quite strongly in property ownership. If you create something, they would argue, then you are entitled to control it. How else are you gonna get compensated for it?
I of course agree to this extent, but I don't quite agree with the typical progression of this argument which sees the fact that most Free Software is given away or distributed under terms which allow free copying and sharing to be an affront to this right to compensation.
Ignoring for the moment the fact that the software developer still gets to choose whether to distribute under those terms (something (s)he'd be able to do to a large extent even if copyright was abolished today), this argument fails to take into account the fundamental nature of software which excludes it from the possibility of being owned, unless you consider a program as one with the medium.
Software cannot exist on its own. It always needs a medium. Software are simply arrangements of ones and zeros represented one way or another by physical properties of a medium such as micro or nanoscopic dents in a compact disk. If you consider software as distinct from the storage media or memory in which it remains you're essentially using one medium, your brain, to conceptualize the arrangements within another. Without either the brain or the other mediums the software could not exist to begin with. How do you own something that doesn't really exist?
This leads us to an interesting point: pretending that ownership of software is possible and thus trying to enforce this ownership (as copyright and patent laws do) actually leads us to violations of actual physical property. If you claim that every arrangement of ones and zeros represented in any medium so long as it is the same arrangement as on your original medium (which you produced) is your own property then you're essentially claiming ownership of these media.
To simplify, if you claim to own a program you're actually claiming to fully or partially own the CDs, DVDs, hard drives of all the people who may have a copy of that program on them. Yet if these people acquired these storage mediums and devices themselves they already are their rightful owners. So in essence you are claiming ownership over something that isn't yours.
Software patents, and all patents for that matter, in that sense actually claim ownership of parts of your brain should you have "their" idea in your mind and use it. This doesn't make any sense. The only way anyone can have any claim over what you do with your property is if you directly agreed with that someone to use your property in such a way, but this isn't how copyright works nor what advocates of proprietary software have in mind.
Instead they assume that even people who never had any sort of an agreement with the actual developer are still bound by the terms of that (non-)agreement. If a person who got the copy from a developer gives it to someone else then that someone else can only have an agreement with that person, not with the developer. If that person broke the agreement not to copy, for instance, then that person alone should be liable for damages, not the one he gave a copy to. Yet copyright enforcement will assume legal prosecution of not only the other person, but everyone else who may have got a copy from him.
This is because copyright doesn't operate on agreements at all (despite how licenses are titled as "agreements"). Instead copyright licenses are merely government enforced monopolies granted to the "copyright holder" that overrides property rights of anyone whom may get the copy of the copyrighted work. Thus this form of "intellectual property" (or pretension of such) is actually a form of institutionalized property violations.
Advocates of proprietary software or even just advocates of copyright or "intellectual property" in general may find this idea unacceptable, but I would venture to guess pretty confidently that they're among those who'd rather believe a lie than be consistent (as mentioned at the beginning of the article). They're concerned for the money or some kind of power they've been able to derive from these monopoly grants.
Proprietary software advocates would probably be most concerned with money whereas ironically Free Software advocates, especially those who promote GNU General Public License (GPL), would be concerned with power.
With regards to money the concern comes from the inability to imagine how could a software developer get paid to develop it. There have been many answers to this question by many Free Software advocates. To reiterate, most of the money is actually in custom coding anyway, as Richard Stallman would usually say, where you get paid to write something specific for someone specific rather than writing it in hopes of it being valuable enough for someone to pay you for it.
But in the latter case, what you can charge for is the first copy. It is after all only the copies on the mediums that you own that you can truly call your own. Thus the price of a first copy, if you value the software thus much and if you believe people are willing to pay, should be higher than it typically is. Don't count on volume sales, but rather on recouping the basic costs with the direct sales to the first few customers. If you want to make a fortune in a software business then, you better count on providing continuous value in addition to the software in form of related services (subscriptions).
Free Software advocates typically rallying behind the GPL are concerned with power, albeit their intentions tend to be benevolent. They just never really came to grasp the fact that they're still operating on a paradigm that they'd otherwise be inclined to reject, which is the paradigm that ownership of ideas and for that matter software is possible. Thus they see it as ethical to fight proprietary software by simply establishing different kinds of monopolies.
GPL is still not fundamentally different from any other proprietary software license (EULAs as they're typically called) in that they are not so much agreements as much as monopoly grants by government under the copyright law operating under the "software can be owned" assumption.
Outside of this paradigm however, if I get emacs from somewhere other than Richard Stallman's GNU.org or FSF.org I actually shouldn't be bound to the terms of his GNU GPL, but rather to whichever terms the one I got it from chooses to set. If he fails to include the license then no terms apply. Of course, he would be in violation of the GPL as an agreement. The difference here is that I wouldn't be liable if I gave it to someone under terms other than GPL, because it wasn't me who had an agreement with Richard Stallman. Thus the leak is out and the only one to blame is the direct recipient from any of the Stallman's own mediums (such as GNU.org).
That's how it would work without the software-ownership paradigm and thus without copyright. Two practical results from this would not be far different from what they already are however. Software would still be all over file sharing sites, except it would be legal and ethically legitimate (as it already is). However what would be different are the contractually agreed to fines for the original-copy-receivers (since they are the only ones who were in the direct author-user agreement they're the only ones liable for these agreement-violating leaks). They would probably go quite high in order to disincentivize them from leaking their copies.
This would however have a side-effect of less people purchasing software under draconian and anti-sharing terms to begin with resulting in the flourishing of the Free Software industry, based on reasonable and unrestrictive user-author agreements and the ongoing value-adding service business model.
Intellectual property is a lie, thus its enforcement by means of the copyright law is nothing more than institutionalized violation of real property rights by means of granting government enforced monopolies to authors. They are given the power to dictate how individuals who never entered any agreements with them and instead got it from someone else will use their own property (hard drives, DVD players and burners etc.).
Without this enforced violation of property restrictive software distribution agreements would be economically unsustainable paving the way for Free Software/Open Source to flourish to a far larger extent than it does today, increasing the overall value proposition of each software user and thus leaving far more software spending power for the service subscription business model as a way for software developers to make a living.