This argument applies for any law. You want a "regulating authority" and you want it to be effective. I don't see how this can happen without trampling the free

This argument applies for any law. You want a "regulating authority" and you want it to be effective. I don't see how this can happen without trampling the freedoms of people, which I personally value a lot more than "creators compensated for works of art". I am saying this as a scientist. I think people should be able to share every paper/book/etc. I wrote. I refuse to think of people who share this knowledge (or some tunes) as thieves ---that's what corporations want you to believe. Scientists and artists already have other sources of income. In my view, laws tailored for publishers are hindering the progress and should be undone (see recent discussions on sci-hub, and also pirate party manifesto). I am sure this goes against the beliefs of many people here: I am a scientist, and our job long precedes industrial revolution, rise of capitalism and corporations, and their byproducts such as copyrights (in its current form) and patents whereas majority of people are a part of Silicon Valley / computer industry (and art is probably older). But I'm quite certain that in its short history, copyright laws by and large worked for big corporations and not for the good of common people. This structure was forced down through our throats, and of course it shaped today's working landscape. It doesn't mean it is fine.