[twainer]

What I see here is a desire to prevent any bad outcome by denying the legitimacy of a whole system. 'Copyright can be used for evil so it must not be a good thing, nor allowed to exist'.

As I am sure most here would agree, any complex system has both positive and negative effects. I will leave it to others to describe the negative effects of patent and copyright. For me, one of the positive effects of copyright is how it allows a personal innate skill and drive to translate directly into social and economic mobility. It's how a poor boy from Gary, Indiana becomes Michael Jackson.

Now, some people may say - who cares about Michael Jackson - but we are all human: there are thousands of people who have drawn inspiration from the progress of others - progress in arts and business - to better themselves and their communities.

Why should I sacrifice all the good of a system that allows that? In my world view, the total disrespect for individual creative rights is that huge step back to a Royalist world of serfdom.

Most importantly: it doesn't have to be either/or. Systems that respect both the artist and the consumer can exist. I find it hard to understand why asking to meet in the middle is asking for too much.

Not only does that not make sense to me, the denying of a right to meet in the middle feels very much to me, as a creative person, that I am simply being forced to trade one overlord for another.