I'm right there with you. Unfortunately it's really hard to use a physical analogy to describe it so I'll make an argument without one. People are taking this

I'm right there with you. Unfortunately it's really hard to use a physical analogy to describe it so I'll make an argument without one. People are taking this issue which exists in a gray area and trying to frame it as black and white. These kids who put the disclaimers up grew up in a time when Napster and MP3 sharing was huge and since they didn't understand the issues then (or thought they did) they aren't trying to now nor do they have any interest in trying. Copyright is just fine. What's wrong with demanding to be paid for your creation? Why should people think they're entitled to not pay for use of your work because they believe copyright is wrong? What if I believed tht murder was okay, went around murdering people in broad daylight then threw a fit about how "well, the laws against this are outdated and lame so you shouldn't punish me because the law sucks"? The arguments about people not paying anyway and free marketing are both lame and they're excuses to make pirates and copyright infringers feel better. People who can't afford to buy a creation will eventually try to save up to get it. If they still can't afford it then why should they get it free anyway? I can't afford a new BMW even if I save for it, so should I be able to walk into the dealership and just take one and drive off screaming "well, I wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's not really anyone's loss!" And the only free marketing you get from this sort of thing is links to the free pirated version! No one markets the paid, original work and those who see the pirate version are more likely to have been looking to steal other digital media so it's not like they saw a recommendation for it on Amazon, they saw a link to a free copy and it's doubtful they'll search out a paid copy. The thing about this issue is that many times you have to judge on a case by case basis. Remember the "remembering Steve" variation on the Apple logo? It very clearly used someone else's intellectual property but I think even Apple could agree that there was nothing to get upset over. This Pulp Fiction remix is kind of a gray area. The entire movie is online but just not in order. Is it different enough from the original to consider it not harmful to Tarentino ans the studio? I guess my point is that copyright isn't all bad, no one is entitled to free work as many believe these days, the reasons given for pirated material not being harmful are just excuses, and we really have to judge on a case by case basis. I know it's not popular to defend copyright but I am anyway because there are parts of the issue that are right on. I'm with corin here and I don't get why he was downvoted like that. That little down arrow isn't there to silence unpopular opinions, it's for getting rid of trolls and off topic posts.