This has gotten out of hand. I'll try to keep it short (good luck!).
> At the very least, you are implying that the capitalist system is absolute and inescapable. Why is that?
If you live in a capitalist system, you play by its rules. We can all discuss what it might be like in a different economic system, but that's of little interest to me. What do you plan to do, cause a revolution in all Western societies? Move to Cuba? Spend the rest of your life cozying up with politicians in a likely to be futile attempt to change the system?
> big brouhaha over looting in New Orleans?
I agree, but that's irrelevant here. How many people copy IP because their lives depend on it? Other than a few exceptional circumstances, like the violations of patents to produce generic drugs, I can't think of any.
Copying a song will save your life? That movie will make major changes for the better? That software is the difference between rags and riches?
> any future copies I make are the product of my labour.
So, if someone buys just one copy, and makes unlimited copies of it for everyone else, that's fine? Why would any commercial venture bother producing IP anymore? What about the person who spent months making it, just so you could so callously spend 30 seconds copying those months of effort?
> Translation: "We need just enough protection to deliver my sinful brethren from temptation, but not enough to be inconvinient to me."
Don't be a complete dolt. The reason is that some protection gives incentive to private interests to invest money into the development of ideas, because they may get a return. Too much protection will hurt society because the control of information isn't desirable. Take a look at the repercussions of the constant extensions of copyrights in the US, or the effects of patents in the software world.
Don't put words in my mouth if you're too dense to understand the obvious interpretation.
> So the person has gained nothing. But what have they lost?
The time, effort, and money they spent making it. These things don't magically materialize into reality.
> But thinking "IP" will solve this problem
Why wouldn't it? It seems to work well enough thus far. IBM's profits from all those patents certainly are a huge disincentive to them to continue investing in R&D. Adobe is clearly investing money in their suite because nobody is paying for it.
> information exists independant of performance
No, it doesn't. The performance produces the information. You can copy it all you like, but realize that these performances are both expensive and take months or years to execute. This isn't just some person performing on the corner.
Adobe Photoshop took a decade and dozens of developers to get where it is now. If you're benefitting from that massive effort, why shouldn't you compensate them for it?
You could just form a massive pool of money to buy that first copy. Oh, wait, maybe the current system works a bit like that, just with greater spread...
> A "request" is not the same as a "gun-to-your-head order", which is what copyright law is.
Doesn't justice in general have to do with "requests"? Here, I request you don't con me either, but if you do, obviously you're beyond the law.
> People have a moral right to share. Period.
Sounds good. Since you're so good at questioning morals, how about telling me why this is so?
Nor is this limited sharing. If it was limited, I doubt there'd be a problem. But some torrents out there are huge. Usenet is wholescale piracy. Then these copies are distributed elsewhere again. By a hoard of complete strangers.
> And "creators" aren't some special people with a special right that trumps that one.
Why not? If the constant sharing causes them to stop producing, how does that benefit anyone?
> When you have copyright you're cutting into basic freedoms. You damn well better justify that.
I've justified it repeatedly in this thread. Are you reading what I'm writing, or just skimming for easy angles of attack?
I suppose capitalism is cutting into basic freedoms too. Let's just toss out the system and head for Communist utopia right now.
> If you disagree with the conditions, then don't take the job.
Well, that's the way it works, isn't it? The reasons we have minimum wage and other limitations is to benefit society at large. Copyright does that too, which is why it exists. Again, a lot of those movies, music, software, patents, etc, take a small fortune to produce. Who is going to pay?
To conclude, you seem to think I'm giving blanket approval of increasing powers invested into IP protection. No, I'm not, but just as I think too much is a bad thing, I think too little will hurt us too. No copyright at all? Pure idiocy in a capitalist system.