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.

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

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.