>The challenge was against the status. It is up to such a challenge to provide a compelling reason to change the law. Was that done all the times copyright was

>The challenge was against the status. It is up to such a challenge to provide a compelling reason to change the law. Was that done all the times copyright was retroactively increased? >Anyone with common sense knows that copying my book is theft. Just because we use the same language for ideas as we do for physical things. Doesn't mean they are equivalent. Calling it intellectual property doesn't magically make it property. And it is common sense that copying is theft. Further book copying isn't theft, at least in the UK. Theft requires an intent to permanently deprive. If I copy your book I'm not permanently depriving you of it.