Read the article... I’m not going to dissect it paragraph by paragraph, but I don't agree with it at all. In my opinion, it's just another person trying to justify piracy, and I don't think the author adequately refutes the central premise behind ownership of intellectual property: in our society, we generally accept that if someone creates something, they own it, unless they've signed away the rights to it, or they didn't otherwise have the rights of ownership in the first place (e.g. they plagiarized the material). Other laws notwithstanding, the owner of the property normally gets to decide their business model when they put their product on the market. (By business model, I mean, whether they lease the product or sell it outright -- for example, its common for car manufacturers to lease vehicles to buyers.)
At the most fundamental level, software is still something tangible that somebody has created, regardless of the details of how it came to be, or how it's different from or similar to some other product, or what the quality of the software is, and regardless of the business model used to sell any other product. It strikes me as a core component of capitalism that, if you create something, you own it, and ultimately you get to decide how your creation is marketed to others.
