Critics of intellectual property argue that: 1) the non-rivalrous nature of intellectual works grounds a prima facie case against rights to restrict access. Since intellectual works are not typically consumed by their use and can be used by many individuals concurrently (making a copy does not deprive anyone of their possessions), we have a strong case against moral and legal intellectual property rights; 2) promoting intellectual property rights is inconsistent with our commitment to freedom of thought and speech. Closely associated with this argument is the position that individuals have a right to knowledge, and intellectual property institutions interfere with this basic right; 3) information is a social product, and enforcing access restrictions unduly benefits authors and inventors. Allowing rights to intellectual works would be similar to granting ownership to the individual who placed the last brick in a public works dam; and 4) intellectual property rights sweep across the entire domain of human action, restricting individual liberty even in the privacy of one’s home. These arguments are presented, analyzed, and found to be unconvincing.