100% agreed with mouser. In the end all of this is subjective. Laws differ from country to country, even state to state or county to county, city to city (any gay couple who has gotten married can attest to that
). So we we agree that morality is really what it comes down to. But that too is subjective. It's not even a matter of "a few bad seeds" or the "weirdos" - entire cultures have existed that had radically different concepts of ownership from our own. Clearly our concept is not inherently right or moral. Morality is usually derived from the majority but a majority need only be 51% - does that mean that 49% of people are wrong if they disagree? That seems kind of ridiculous too.
So I think we have gotten right back to my main point which is that these issues are not simple. Not nearly as simple as the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc. would like us to believe. On the face of it what they're arguing is essentially correct - it is against the law to copy software, music, movies, etc. But since it shows no signs of stopping, despite massive litigation and fines, it seems kind of clear that a lot of people *do* feel it's morally acceptable to do these things. Does that redefine the "majority"? If so, and the majority thinks it's ok to do these things, then are the laws still defined by the majority, or rather instead by the minority power holders?
Lots of interesting questions. I do not claim to have any answers, I just think all this stuff is very worthwhile to think about.