Thank you. It never ceases to amaze me how much of the "criticism" aimed at copyright depends on massive distortion of otherwise well-defined words. Refusing

Thank you. It never ceases to amaze me how much of the "criticism" aimed at copyright depends on massive distortion of otherwise well-defined words. Refusing to pay your rent to a property management company on the grounds that they're a rent-seeking cartel exercising monopolistic control over "your" apartment is not astute economic analysis. Rather, it's the mark of a (soon to be evicted) idiot. Lambasting the creator and owner of an intellectual property for running a commercial operation to recover his costs and produce a profit is the same thing. And before anyone insists that "copies are different" and "making isn't taking", it's worth remembering that the bone of contention isn't in the copies. It's in the money that's not changing hands after the copy has been made. Economically speaking, digital media may be a special case in that units have zero marginal cost. But we don't throw up our hands and say "oh well, that's the end of professionally produced media." Instead, we recognize the inability of free markets to meet all our needs, realize that laws also play a vital role in advanced societies, and create exclusive and legally protected terms and conditions under which creators can safely exploit their work. And while it's true that major publishers routinely display cartel-like behavior in their negotiations with artists, it's ridiculous to say that they maintain any kind of industry-wide monopoly with regard to the general public. Indeed, anyone working in these businesses can tell you how fiercely you need to compete to win public favor. It's no OPEC, that's for sure.