I see nobody mentioned the real irony of the MPAA complaining aboout piracy, their members set up in Hollywood so that they could pirate movie technology using film. They did not like paying a license to Edison to use his patents.
Prior to digital copies there weere various ways of consuming copyrighted work without paying the copyright holder,. A friend could lend you his/her copy. Friends met up at various houses to listen to records, and books could be borrowed from the library. Physical goods are also available second hand, which make the available withiout paying the copyright holder.
As a youth I would read two or libray books a week, but only buy, or be given two or three books a year. Actual sales of books probably accounted for under one percent of the readership, so payment for books at least was largely voluntary,
I picked a few examples to illustrate that copyright is not necessary for the production of cultural works. You have not addressed my main point, the danger of copyright to the freedom of speech, and the transmision of ideas reuired for cultural and scientific growth.
I think that strong copyright is slowly leading to establishing the prerequisites for totalitarian state, an effective mechanism for censoring published information.
What about when it is necessary to request removal of the porn filter because it blocks sites like ttp://scoraigwind.co.uk a blog about homemade windpower. (hello there T-Mobile).
There are perfectly good internet fiolters that can be used on a home or school network such as dans guardian, and dns server that also do such filtering. These are opt-in systems, and require a small amout of effort to use.
Would you agree if techdirt got added to the block list. It sometimes uses adult language.
This sort of system could all too easily become a light form of censrship, Get a site added to the list to cut down its effectiveness. Also how long before the usual suspects get 'pirate' sites added to the list?
I wonder, do the politicians think that if they strengthen copyright that their friends in the MAFIAA will censor content for them, it will of course be accidental, and recent events would help support this claim.
Most politicians, like religious leaders, are acting on faith, and have a limited view on freedom of speech, it is OK if it agrees with their viewpoint.
Politics like religion has a large component of belief, and a limited attachment to reality.
SOPA and ACTA were not defeated by reason, but rather because politicians feared that passing them would cost them their jobs. Therefore they see no reason to change copyright, but rather a need to educate the public until they agree with their viewpoint.