The fundamental idea here is that you have no intrinsic right to the things you already possess. Should we force people to pay additional taxes on other property in order to continue to possess it? I think that would be wildly unpopular, but unless you're willing to do it in general, aren't you just picking on subpopulations you don't like?
The fact that BigCo. might be able to exploit an IP for some purpose -- perhaps making commercials out of popular songs -- in a way that would lead to revenue does not intrinsically suggest that it would be a good thing. Why shouldn't the artist retain control? Why shouldn't his heirs (who have already paid inheritance taxes) retain control?
Should an individual unable to pay taxes on his own organs lose them to someone who will pay the market value? I think most of us would think that grotesque. And it's grotesque because the viewpoint behind it -- that the highest bidder should automatically win, that it is intrinsically the "highest" and best purpose -- is grotesque.
The fact that BigCo. might be able to exploit an IP for some purpose -- perhaps making commercials out of popular songs -- in a way that would lead to revenue does not intrinsically suggest that it would be a good thing. Why shouldn't the artist retain control? Why shouldn't his heirs (who have already paid inheritance taxes) retain control?
Should an individual unable to pay taxes on his own organs lose them to someone who will pay the market value? I think most of us would think that grotesque. And it's grotesque because the viewpoint behind it -- that the highest bidder should automatically win, that it is intrinsically the "highest" and best purpose -- is grotesque.