No, that's not what obsolete copyright. But copyright is intended as a give and take and if I can't watch Resident Evil on my terms they've broken their end of

No, that's not what obsolete copyright. But copyright is intended as a give and take and if I can't watch Resident Evil on my terms they've broken their end of it. I see no need to be the patsy in every situation, either prevented from using something I own, or prevented from owning things I need (not that this is an example, but a compiler perhaps) because of what strike me as unreasonable rules. What obsoletes copyright entirely is that it's a horrible way (like patents) of meeting its modern goals. Its authoritarian roots in censorship make it more focused on controlling distribution than rewarding the creator of valuable things. You (generically) might have noble goals with copyrights but they're a legal minefield stifling activity. And all because we won't reward a creator but merely give them a letter of marque to go try to reward themselves with. If we really cared about the public good (the supposed reason for copyright) or the creators, we'd make copying unrestricted and we'd reward the creators from a public tax pool that we'd fund by stopping all restrictions on copying and the savings from not legislating/litigating/enforcing this nonsense. As for DDOS attacks, in what ways aren't they like sit-ins? In both resources are intentionally wasted, customers blocked, and often the harm spills over to surrounding businesses? Not defending them or decrying them, but why isn't it a fairly good analogy?