Every single sentence in your post is pro-copyright. I get it, you support a more limited form of copyright than we have right now. Just don't go around calling

Every single sentence in your post is pro-copyright. I get it, you support a more limited form of copyright than we have right now. Just don't go around calling yourself "as anti-copyright … as anyone you would ever meet". Especially not to someone who is actually anti-copyright. I don't have to look around to find an obvious counter-example. It's me. > Information should be free to share and copy, but not at a profit if it infringes on the owner of the IP. That sounds like what the Open Source Definition would classify as discrimination based on field of endeavour. Terms like that are way more trouble than they're worth. If anyone can share and copy the content at cost, the only way to earn a profit is to provide some value-added service. Which means you're not profiting from the content, but rather from the service you've added on top. I'm not sure why you would have an issue with that. > Megaupload employees and owners uploaded pirated content, and profited hugely. Not small margins—they made millions. That's only because competition for hosting and indexing services was severely limited by copyright. I don't see the relevance to the scenario you're describing where there are no restrictions on (non-profit) sharing or copying. Their margins would be basically zero under those circumstances, or at least no more than any other hosting service. Any profit they did make would be due entirely to their own efforts.