It's a stunningly badly argued piece; if it weren't for its headline, it would be unclear precisely what he's arguing for.
In general, he seems to be arguing that intellectual property rights -- including, probably, copyrights, patents and trademarks -- should all be protected in the same way that real property rights are. To be sure, he sets up a few straw men in his argument; for example, I can't recall that anyone has precisely argued that because something is trashy, it should automatically lose its legal protections, but he defends that side premise as though someone has done so.
He also draws parallels between real and intellectual property, stating that you're allowed to keep real property more or less intact (taxes aside), while intellectual property rights lapse after set amounts of time. I confess, while I think there's something wrong with that argument, I'm not entirely sure what it is or how to express it....
