"Private Property"? You have a strange concept of private property, and Lockean notions of private property had nothing to do with copyright as it's observed today.
The government isn't taking anything away from you. It is the government that is hammering down on others to prevent them from using your words, your thoughts, your world, etc. That's pro-active action on government's part (ie, capitalistic Socialism). If government stayed out of it entirely, then you wouldn't have any protection at all. Keep that in mind.
Capitalistic Socialism? In the most polite manner possible I ask, did you make that up?
I never said the government wanted to take anything away from me. I said
you did, as in, the "camp advocating making private property less under the conrol of its owners/creators so that it can be given for free to the masses". Currently my government protects my private property (and to clear something up, I'm not referring to Lockean notions of private property. I'm referring to things that belong to me/private citizens.) for me, at my behest. Whether it's my car or my book, the government enforces laws that make it illegal for others to steal them from me. Whether you say you are "pro copyright" or not, you're advocating that that protection be lessened. You are advocating that my property be more easily taken from me.
And as for the government staying entirely out of it, you're the one that was complaining about oppressive/invasive government, not I. Keep in mind that you should take the time to read and understand other people's posts before responding to them.
Actually, they are. In practice in America, copyright protects those with money (ie, who can afford Copyright/IP lawyers), and does not protect those without it (the rest of us).
Did you read what you quoted? This is exactly why I said, "under the law." Pointing out that we have not acheived the ideal is meaningless. It doesn't change the ideal we're striving for. It just points to a whole slew of other problems that allow the rich to work the system, and only in the most general sense does it have anything to do with the discussion at hand. Focus.
They lobby congress to change and enact laws that the general populace wouldn't want (or benefit from), but we don't have money to throw to politicial candidates to try to counteract that.
At least half the blame you ascribe to the rich here actually belongs to the people who keep electing politicians who bow to special interest groups. Again, the reality doesn't match the ideal. No surprise there.
But the core of the matter I was responding to was your claim that strict copyright law smacks of socialism. It is there that you seem to equate the rich folk with government. If the rich folk were the government, then you'd have a point. They aren't. I recognize that rich folk have more clout, for all the wrong reasons, but they do. Oh well. Would you draw a line at some point and say, "Once you're this rich you don't get to have a say in government anymore." ?
Keeping the private citizen in control of his own property protects him from the rich as well as everyone else who wants to steal his property. It's what allows him to join the rich in their richness. Take it away and he's got no chance at all to improve his situation.
I recognize that your pro-copyright and just think some things should be changed about it. I can say the same. I'm objecting to your charactrisation of those who want to keep strong copyright laws in place as socialist. It's a bit of a reach.