[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Those protected in the UK, for example, by the 1988 "Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act", and by similar laws in all other civilized countries.

Which do not have anything to do with property rights. They are all government granted rights intended to help society as a whole.

Originally Posted by HarryT

A book, piece of software, movie, MP3 files, etc, is not an "idea".

They are the physical (some more than others) manifestation of an idea. People typically don't buy a book to have the physical object. They buy it for the idea contained inside it.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Where, in the post above, did I say that it was stealing? I said that these people were taking other peoples' intellectual property without paying for it. The law calls that "copyright infringement", not "theft". I personally regard that as merely a matter of semantics, but I'm not calling it "stealing".

Yes, yes, yes, I am well aware of the fantasy world in which you live. The the reality is that copyright infringement is not stealing.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Obeying the law is the moral basis of society.

I take it that the schools in the UK don't teach what Ghandi did, then.

Originally Posted by HarryT

If somebody feels that the law is outdated or unjust, they should take action, through the appropriate judicial processes, to have that law changed,

And how, exactly, does one do that when the law is created by a non-elected body (i.e. WIPO)?

Originally Posted by HarryT

You claim that the law "does not benefit society", but I disagree. I can't make a living from writing a book or a computer program unless the law protects my rights as an author to receive income from doing so.

And without content going into the public domain, and by copyrights never expiring, you cannot write your book or software without falling into legal issues.

Originally Posted by HarryT

If I don't get paid, I'm not going to create that product, and society loses out. That was the reason that copyright laws were introduced, and it's as valid today as it was in the 16th century. No protection for authors = no books.

Explain how, in any stretch of reality that doesn't include several stiff drinks, extending copyright 90 years beyond author's death "protects the author".