Moore, Adam and Ken Himma, “Intellectual Property”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, link.

“Arguments for intellectual property rights have generally taken one of three forms (Hughes 1988; Moore 2008). Personality theorists maintain that intellectual property is an extension of individual personality. Utilitarians ground intellectual property rights in social progress and incentives to innovate. Lockeans argue that rights are justified in relation to labor and merit. To this we add a recent fourth strand of justification (Moore 2018). This more recent justification analyzes content creation and access as a form of the prisoner’s dilemma.”
“In terms of “justification,” modern Anglo-American systems of intellectual property are typically modeled as incentive-based and utilitarian. On this view, a necessary condition for promoting the creation of valuable intellectual works is granting limited rights of ownership to authors and inventors. Absent certain guarantees, authors and inventors might not engage in producing intellectual property.”
“It is crucial to note that the issue of whether intellectual property protection does, or does not, sufficiently promote human happiness or well-being is an empirical question. […] The difficulties involved in obtaining such evidence suggest that the empirical question will remain debated for some time. Complicating the task is the fact that the efficacy or lack thereof of intellectual protection in promoting well-being seems to vary from one industry to the next (Lemley 2015).”
“Putting aside the strands of argument that seek to justify moral claims to intangible works and the rather focused problems with these views, there are several general critiques of the rights to control intellectual property to consider.”
“Critics argue that information is not the kind of thing that can be owned or possessed and is not something that can be property, as that notion is typically defined.”
“Many have argued that the non-rivalrous nature of intellectual works grounds a prima facie case against rights to restrict access.”
“According to some, promoting intellectual property rights is inconsistent with our commitment to freedom of thought and speech.”
” On this view the building blocks of intellectual works—knowledge—is a social product. Individuals should not have exclusive and perpetual ownership of the works that they create because these works are built upon the shared knowledge of society. Allowing rights to intellectual works would be similar to granting ownership to the individual who placed the last brick in a public works dam.”
“intellectual property rights sweep across the entire domain of human action, restricting individual liberty even in the privacy of one’s own home. “How can the artist, copyright or patent holder determine what I can do with my stuff?” Many have attacked the notion of intellectual property on the grounds that it violates individual liberty rights”

Swinyard et al 1990, The morality of software piracy: A cross-cultural analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, link

“While Asians seem to have a more casual atdtude than Americans toward software piracy, those in the West must understand that it is not simple lawbreaking we are dealing with. Copyright and other protection legislation goes firmly against the grain of Asian culture, which supports the concept of sharing, not protecting, individual creative work.”
“Despite the fact that many Asians are behaving illegally, to conclude that they are behaving immorally is inappropriate. More accurately, it appears that their moral values respecting this matter are simply very different from Westeners. Software copyright runs afoul of deeply rooted and somewhat fundamental Asian-cultural beliefs. Not only does their culture provide less support for copyright legislation, it provides more support for the human benefits which might come from the piracy.”

Gisbon 2014, The Ethics of Piracy for Personal Use, link

“I outline a better argument for the ethics of piracy which focuses on harms and property rights.”
“These harms are not instances of wrongful harming because they do not violate morally justified property rights.”
“Piracy is morally permissible in the sense that it does not violate justified property rights but impermissible in the sense that it is responsible for a collective harm to sales.”
“Thus some but not all acts of piracy are morally permissible.”
“In fact our moral obligations regarding piracy are not clear at all. The use of ordinary property without consent is wrong because it either harms the owner or violates their property rights. […] By contrast works of fiction on electronic media are non rivalrous goods.”
“The current philosophical literature lacks strong conclusions about the ethical status of piracy for personal use.”
“In this project I will argue that piracy for personal use is morally permissible provided that certain conditions are met.”
“In chapter six I will outline a rule based solution which describes the conditions for morally permissible piracy such that an agent who follows them may pirate for personal use without danger of contributing to the collective harm to sales”
“While acts of piracy for personal use do not violate moral rights or harm wrongfully, the literature is converging on the conclusion that they are responsible for large damage to sales through a collective harm. While I have argued that these harms are instrumental, I also accepted that there are sufficiently many of them to count as an instance of significant harm given that they are serious and avoidable. In response to this significant harm I outlined conditions for acts of piracy for personal use which prevent them harming sales. The act must be for personal use rather than for profit and the agent must not pirate something which they would otherwise have purchased. If an agent pirates a F.E.M. [fiction on electronic media] and realises that it is worth paying for i.e. if they determine that the value of the experience good is greater than the initially thought, then the agent is obliged to purchase it. If you pirated Inglorious Basterds and loved it then purchase a copy of Inglorious Basterds.”