I'll repost what I said in this thread.

Pro IP:

/u/JamesCarlin writes a lot about it on his wiki.

/u/Strangering has written a piece: The economic principles of intellectual property and the fallacies of intellectual communism (Archive)

Is There Room for Intellectual Property Rights in Austrian Economics? - Paul F. Cwik

Depending on how one defines IP Rothbard could be considered pro or against. For instance he is against patents but copacetic with forms of copyright.

7. Patents and Copyrights - Murray N. Rothbard

I have been told that Adam Mossoff is prominent pro-IP Objectivist (then again most Objectivists seem to be pro-IP) I hadn't heard of him, I don't know the base of his arguments, but I'm currently reading through a couple of his pieces.

Against IP:

Against Intellectual Property - Stephan Kinsella (Text)

Intellectual Property and Libertarianism - Stephan Kinsella (Video)

Against Intellectual Monopoly - Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine (Text)

The Evils of Intellectual Property - Jeffrey A. Tucker (Video)

Is Intellectual Property the Key to Success? - Jeffrey A. Tucker (Text)

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights - Roderick T. Long (Text)

I don't think Hans-Hermann Hoppe has written a complete article but he states he agrees with Kinsella and believes IP to be dangerous. [1]

It's very easy to see why Hoppe would be against IP from The Ethics and Economics of Private Property (Text)

Robert P. Murphy - another person that I don't think has written a whole article on it - has sated that IP laws are obsolete.

My personal opinion from this post:

For me what is and what is not property is a big part of how I determine when violence is legitimate. To paraphrase Hoppe, original appropriation and private property are a solution to the problem of social order; a way of resolving and avoiding conflict.

Physical property is difficult enough and IP becomes an irreconcilable mess in my mind. I've had some trouble getting a solid understanding of exactly what IP is from a pro-IP perspective. I generally think of it as a property claim over information, more specifically patterns.

As this video was used to point out how small of chunks of a songs pattern constitute an IP claim? You keep getting smaller and smaller until you're at basic sounds. I'm not a musician so my terms are going to probably be wrong, but in the same vein how much can one alter the pitch, tone, or even volume before you have created a unique enough pattern? The over arching questions: what is the level of uniqueness to gain and/or avoid an IP claim?

I'm aware that problems exist when it comes to original appropriation/homesteading. However, in the vast majority of cases physical property can be defined, boundaries can be set up, literal lines can be drawn. I'm not sure how that's possible with IP. IP dictates what other people can do with their property even if they have had claim to that property longer than the IP claim has existed - how people can combine atoms and organize 1's and 0's. As I state above I believe the purpose of property is to solve and avoid conflict. Currently I believe that IP creates more conflict rather than solving it.