0
I don't think any of those things constitute an argument against intellectual property. In order:
The Picasso bit just shows the natural limits of IP in certain mediums (or at certain times).
I'd quibble with the idea that Citizen Kane is just an "attack on property," at least in the sense that would have any relevance here. It's certainly an attack on valuing property over people, or making it an end in and of itself, but that's not the same thing as thinking the concept of property does not manifestly increase wealth, comfort, or artistic expression. And even if this was what it meant, I'm not sure why "a great work of art took this stance" is an argument for that stance.
And I have two objections to referencing the unreleased Welles film. The first is that it's anecdotal, and against it we can put an uncountable number of modern works that would not have been produced with even a fraction of the resources they were (or produced at all) without some kind of IP protection. The second is that, even if you decided the entire concept of IP could be weighed and judged on a single film being held from release, it would still only really constitute an argument against the particulars of the implementation we have now, remedied by any number of simple reforms (expiry upon death, fewer years before the work enters the public domain, et cetera), without actually abolishing intellectual property altogether.
Last edited by Yoda; 11-23-20 at 04:05 PM.
Reason: Fixed a typo.