These threads always seem to come down to people making a little bit of money and how wrong that is. All that does is strengthen my belief that intellectual property is just age-old monopoly privilege rent-seeking, or protectionism, rearing its ugly head again.
I think this should always be established in these kinds of discussions. IP isn't property in any sense compared to what the requirements are for regular property, it's an exclusive right, a government-granted monopoly. It's not like owning an apple tree, where if someone takes my apples or cuts down my tree to use the wood in their smokehouse it would be theft. It's not theft for my neighbor to plant his own apple tree though. IP is like owning an apple tree, and, to take it to a logical conclusion. murdering anyone else who tries to plant apple trees on their own property so that I can be the exclusive supplier of apples. It's forbidding one's neighbors from planting their own apple trees, or even to obtain apples given by a friend.
If it should be considered property, then its ownership should be indefinite. If people think about what that would mean for a moment, many will realize that scenario is one that would be too paralyzing to do anything. I always get replies about creation when I try to discuss this too, so I'll post this right away - http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
If that is established, the discussion can go where it should about whether an exclusive right like this is beneficial or not. Before I get into an argument about it, I'll state that I think that any benefits are far outweighed by disadvantages so I think it's bad. I'm confident that I can summon significant proof to support my position too, or people could Google some terms. I personally find it repulsive that people need to ask permission to make money when they're not depriving anyone else of anything but are, in fact, adding value to the whole pie. That's just me though, maybe other people feel differently, and that's fine, but who should the burden of proof be on? I think it should be on people that want to use violence in the form of government intervention to grant a coercive monopoly right on a nonrivalrous product. I've heard many arguments but haven't ever seen any proof other than it can be used to redistribute from many people to a few people.
Now, if people had argued that Nintendo has an interest or part ownership in Google and Youtube while LPers don't, that's something I could understand and wouldn't get riled up about it. I still think it wouldn't work well in a world without IP though because many people will just go somewhere else or build there own site if they can't be threatened with intellectual property. Or not if Youtube is too damn convenient to pass on.