I think its the idea that copyright is considered by some to be actual property right, when it isn't. It is a creation by the government to encourage the development of goods. With the internet and the relentless extension of copyright many people no longer believe it is worth the trade off and think that copyright should no longer exist.

I didn't write the previous posts, but decided to chime in with what i thought.

The executive, legislative, and (most importantly) judicial branches of our government disagree with you, as do virtually all mainstream producers of copyrighted content.

I appreciate arguments that Congress is captive to the "copyright cartel", but it's harder for me to accept the notion that every judge that has ruled against a file sharer has done so because of lobbying. And, if you read the case material, they aren't primarily making those decisions based on the (bad) new laws we're getting about copyright protection --- in fact, I feel like the courts have a pretty decent track record on navigating the bullshit laws Congress is generating. Basic security and circumvention research, for instance, hasn't been shut down.

I understand the point you're making, but I think appeals to different theories and interpretations of the copyright act are ultimately destined to fail.

I'm not trying to excuse file sharing, it's currently illegal just as a lot of recreational drugs are illegal. The Eldridge case, copyright lasting forever (retroactively extending copyright) was a clear failure of the courts. Since the purpose of copyright is to encourage creation, retroactive copyright extension has no basis.

In my opinion there will be a time when drugs are legalized, and copyright will most likely no longer exist.

I do not agree with this premises of copyright because it violate actual property right.

I believe that deontological ethical principles(In this case, libertarianism) override any utilitarian scheme to improve the economy.

However, I also found no evidence to suggest copyright and patent improve the economic wellbeing of civilizations. In fact, I feel confident enough to argue that copyright and patents harm economic progress.

While I am open to evidence that copyright and patent can improve the economic condition of men, but I am closed to ethical justification. Unless you can prove why copyright does not violate property rights, my opposition to copyright will remain stern.

Nope. I will not argue anything further than that. Nobody mean nobody. Not me, not you, not filesharers. Nothing and nobody.

EDIT:

I made it very clear that if nobody wants to buy from the authors, artists, programmers, the incentive to produce will suffer.

If this is what the consumer sovereign truly intended, than it is an ethical outcome and an outcome that cannot be changed.

I think one of the reasons that nobody who "matters" in this debate agrees with points like this is that nobody is being forced to buy content. If you don't want to pay for Miley Cyrus, don't listen to it.

If copyright contracts naturally occur in a free market, than I am willing to concede that.

However, it seem to me that copyright has power to reach third-parties, not those who are originally involved in an transaction between authors and buyers.