You're right, of course, but I don't think a deep dive into the premises is a practical. There's just not enough time. Any high level discussion is going to req

You're right, of course, but I don't think a deep dive into the premises is a practical. There's just not enough time. Any high level discussion is going to require the participants to many layers of premises. Whether we like it or not, there are basic beliefs about copyright already entrenched in American culture and law. And even that is based on a common sentiment regarding property and ownership. Which can't be justified without a shared belief in having a government in the first place. Etc. I could keep going. Instead of starting from the bottom up, or from some arbitrary point in the middle, I think a top-down approach is more practical. As messy as it is, that's how the law has to work, otherwise decisions can never be made. Let's just take the status quo for granted, and ask: "Are recently-passed and newly-proposed laws even consistent with the primary goals of copyright?" Or, to frame it ethically instead of legally: "Does digital file-sharing conflict with the societal values that led us to value copyright in the first place? I suppose it's necessary to clarify exactly what those societal values are. But, from a practical standpoint (not a theoretical one), it would be premature to begin debating the justification behind the values themselves.