[acg]

If copyright were just to protect the investment of a company in development of an artist or product I'd broadly agree with this argument.

Where copyright seems objectionable to me, is where the initial cost of development was non-existent or large profits have been made for years. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Royalty_a...

For some copyright to last 95 years seems more like profiteering than protection of the creative industries considering creation is often based on the work of others.

I don't condone piracy, but I think piracy would be far less socially acceptable if: - the creator can be seen to benefit from their work - copyright better resembled its original intent of protecting investment in the creation of something new and not staking ownership over the work of others.

[jiggy2011]

Playing "happy birthday to you" in public might be a legit act of civil disobedience .

Pirating last weeks blockbuster isn't.

[bitmonk]

That's an opinion. Stating opinion as fact is a worthless contribution, in fact a detriment, to healthy discussion.

I wouldn't argue that there's moral high ground here, I'd simply put it this way:

  Anyone who thinks there is a better way to keep people from pirating music than to make the legal means of acquisition simple, affordable, and to not play games with release dates, is a fucking idiot.