I disagree, Bob, and I wasn't being particularly snarky in that post (I was in my reply to you previous to that, and while that was partially because of my reaction to what you said in it I reread it last night and felt it was overly harsh, and for that I apologise). I really do not comprehend the peculiarly American fetish (well, peculiarly American insofar as I'm passingly familiar with several different country's politics, and none seem to share this habit to anywhere near the same degree, but of course that's a small subset of the world's total) for slavishly interpreting the intent of the writer of a law as important rather than the current needs of the society, and I frankly think it is a ludicrous way of thinking. Jefferson was a very intelligent and learned man for his time, but relying on his views to carry any moral weight in the twenty-first century is simply absurd. He held many moral views which would be considered grotesque in the modern era (about Native Americans, for starters), and even if he did not, the simple fact remains that he would not even comprehend the current situation and his views would be very honestly less informed than that of Joe Internet.
Also, to repoint out what I already said to Rob - I have no affiliation with the RIAA, do not espouse their views, have never referred to them, and could not possibly care less what they think. If Mitch Glazier lobbies for the RIAA to take the first-born children of copyright law violators to train and raise as their elite corps of assassins to spread fear and terror amongst those who would download music, it does not have the slightest iota of bearing on the argument (even less so since the argument at the moment is primarily about printed material). So why bring it up? Not only I am demonstrably not in agreement with their views, it's not as if this is an either/or situation. It seems as if you and Rob were trying to taint my position by (spurious) association, which is hardly fair.
Also, to repoint out what I already said to Rob - I have no affiliation with the RIAA, do not espouse their views, have never referred to them, and could not possibly care less what they think. If Mitch Glazier lobbies for the RIAA to take the first-born children of copyright law violators to train and raise as their elite corps of assassins to spread fear and terror amongst those who would download music, it does not have the slightest iota of bearing on the argument (even less so since the argument at the moment is primarily about printed material). So why bring it up? Not only I am demonstrably not in agreement with their views, it's not as if this is an either/or situation. It seems as if you and Rob were trying to taint my position by (spurious) association, which is hardly fair.