Slashdot Mirror
After Megaupload, MPAA Targets Other File Sharing Services
An anonymous reader writes "It is no secret that the MPAA was a main facilitator of the criminal investigation against Megaupload. While the movie studios have praised the actions of the U.S. Government, they are not satisfied yet. Paramount Pictures' vice president for worldwide content protection identified Fileserve, MediaFire, Wupload, Putlocker and Depositfiles as prime targets that should be shuttered next."
I guess the pirate bay is still flying under the radar. Hopefully that one never goes mainstream.
That Paramount actually has a "vice president for worldwide content protection" says plenty.
When do the various file-sharing services get together and collectively countersue the MPAA for obstruction of commerce, racketeering, and whatever else comes to mind when one industry gets together to choke another?
For that matter, when does the internet start to crowdfund a bounty in the form of attorneys' fees to go after these guys? Perhaps we were waiting until the ISPs implement "6 Strikes", at which point all the open public WiFi hotspots will necessarily be taken offline or passworded outside common public use.
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
Yeah, that's what musicians do. Start businesses.
Ozzy Osborne soda is the best.
The Affordable Care Act failing to pass muster in the Supreme Court would imperil the planned 2013 Legislative Lobby agenda by the RIAA and MPAA to introduce that Affordable Media Act (AMA) which would provide Government Subsidies to help keep Blu-Ray and Access to Media Streaming Services at existing Prices in exchange for the requirement for all American Tax Payers to show proof of the purchase of at least $500 per year in Digital Media from any one of a number of participants in a Government run Media Marketplace (member including Walmart, iTunes Music Store, Amazon and others) or pay a tax penalty of $100,000.00 or 10 years imprisonment since it can be assumed that by not buying media from an authorized Marketplace Member, you are engaged in Copyright Infringement.
American's want online media -- let's provide it to them in a lawful and controlled manner.
100% spot on! I did the same about 6 years ago, I cut cable and never looked back I also run XBMC with icefilms plugin and have 12mb dsl with newsgroup access and I have a demonoid account and instead of a DVR I use a feature in uTorrent called RSS Downloader. I give utorrent a list of movies and tv shows I want and it automatically downloads them weekly for me, stores them on an shared external usb hard drive which my XBMC box can see so with so many shows saved in my uTorrent RSS Downloader I get new tv shows daily all commercial free zero spam! spam free tv is the only way to watch anymore!
WTF? It's 4/1, it's not allowed to have real news on 4/1!
Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
I don't know all of these services, but doesn't the DMCA's safe harbor provision exempt them from this sort of witch hunt prosecution, as long as DMCA reports are handled in a timely manner ? You could receive a thousand such reports a day, as long as you promptly take down the content (or challenge false claims), you're supposed to be in the clear, as far as the law is concerned.
I've received such complaints in the past, when one of my hosting clients had their site compromised and was used as a warez drop. I fixed the problem, nuked the offending files and never heard of it again. Given that I'm currently in the process of setting up such a file host (no payments though), I'm a bit concerned about this legal abuse. Youtube allows user uploads, and honors DMCA takedowns, and they seem to be doing just fine. Both sites are hosting user-created content. Both have the potential to carry copyrighted material. Both generate ad revenue from their traffic. What makes a filehost any different ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Wow. We've gone from "OMG Ponies!" to "Turn off the lights the internet is over"
The MPAA and RIAA have shit all over April Fool's day.
We have magnet links: A convenient, standard way of addressing a file by hash and size. If that were combined with some form of decentralised distribution-and-caching system, there'd be no need for lockers.
I'm not talking about piracy, but anything that needs to distribute lots of data without spending a fortune on a CDN. Linux package repos, patches, freely-distributable content, that sort of thing. Storage is cheap now. Something like freenet, but without the need for performance-hurting paranoia in every aspect. Ideally something so simple for clients that it could be built into browsers to get HTML5 video or downloads without the user needing to even be aware of what's going on.
I keep posting these half-formed ideas, hoping that if I get enough people thinking it over then someone with more skill than me will be able to work on the details and impliment it.
From what I understand, the founders have not done jail time but are fugitives, with a price on their head and all that.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Follis.
Infringing copyright to consume and enjoy material someone else has produced is equivalent to "saving jews"? Dude.. you are fucked up in the head.
The statement being replied to did not express the wrongness of copyright infringement, but of breaking the law. If the law is the basis on which you decide morality then it would seem you would have to conclude that saving Jews from Nazi persecution when they were in government was an immoral action since it was illegal. If you can't abide by that conclusion then you need a more thorough justification to claim that copyright infringement is wrong.
An average high school student could be expected to understand that point without having it explained. I pity you, since either your intellect is insufficient to understand the point or your character is insufficient to require you to make an honest argument. Both are serious deficiencies.
Why don't you hire an artist to produce content for you? Then you own it, you can do whatever with it, including sharing it with others for free.
My wife is a musician and we are quite ok without locking the internet down. Recording artists from major labels now put their songs on youtube for free and still sell copies. Why they are still getting bent out of shape over file sharing is beyond me.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
If you're going to all this effort, and already have usenet - ditch torrents completely. I can highly recommend the sickbeard/couchpotato/headphones/sabnzbd setup.
MegaUpload can't provide me that, but that's fine when Google does it
Breaking the law is only breaking the law if you get caught. Otherwise, you're innocent.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Speaking as a casual infringer...I don't infringe by habit. But living in a third world country, sometimes I literally cannot pay for the content I want. So in those cases, I will infringe...
Anyhow, I don't count myself as a diehard pirate, but I didn't even know about 4/5 sites listed, so I thank the MPAA for improving my options.
I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
Breaking the law is breaking the law.. I can't wait for the coming DNS blocks. Finally a software developer or musician wont have to worry about starting a business and getting ripped off by people who want to enjoy his work for free.
MPAA may be full of shit, but at the same time it's annoying how anti-piracy comments always get robotically modded down in Slashdot. I just think it's good to look objectively at both sides of the coin.
Oy - MPAA, why don't you get with the evolution of how the media should flow - rather than dictate how you WANT it to flow...BTW, MPAA, STFU and LEARN.
YankDownUnder Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire
Thank You.. ibrahim saraçolu
Anyone missing the pony pink, can invert the colors of Slashdot. There's a Compiz plugin for that.
I quit purchasing all MPAA and RIAA content after the SOPA/PIPA/Megaupload fiasco. Will not purchase their content ever again and am doing everything in my power to convince people I know not to purchase their content. Then I see this article and it just re-confirms that I am on the right track. Fuckem. I'll give my money to the EFF.
They've already got the politicians deep enough in their pockets they may as well have sovereign immunity.
Waste more taxpayer dollars shutting down things that innocents use so that we can gain absolutely nothing. Why? Because people are copying data! The horror!
Then just get rid of the internet. Someone could use it to infringe upon someone's copyright (Oh, the horror!), after all!
I'm getting lost in the meta-humor.
Has no one else noticed/bothered to point out that this is the very first story published on April Fools?
So wait - on April 2 they release it as "Haha, **AA has NOT targeted those companies".
To which the elephant in the room is "... yet".
**AA goes "Ooh, neat, let's do that!' "
So then April 4'ths news is "D'oh! Now it IS news, therefore our April Fools joke is prophetic!"
Either that, or they get to say "yes, this really is news, but we purposely waited to post it on April Fools to obfuscate it."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Has no one else noticed/bothered to point out that this is the very first story published on April Fools?
In what time zone? The anglosphere covers time zones as far east of Greenwich as New Zealand and as far west as Alaska.
I need non-DRM'd MP3, FLAC or OGG format
iTunes Store sells non-DRM'd MP4, which plays on far more than just iDevices. I'm unfamiliar with Nokia phones because Nokia has failed in North America, but I'm under the impression that newer smartphones that play MP3 will also play MP4, and so can the PlayStation 3 console. If it's a problem, you can always transcode. (Transcoding to a lower bitrate, such as 192 to 128 kbps, generally doesn't add noticeably more artifacts than transcoding from lossless.)
There is plenty of radio channels to choose from even just from FM
In your country, does FM have indie artists, or is it just the major labels?
So how does one convince enough others to do the same to make a statistically significant dent in sales figures, especially when the major television news outlets are owned by the MPAA?
This will never stop as long as anyone wants their music, wants it now, and is willing to pay for it.
And is willing to immigrate to a country where the copyright owner is willing to take the customer's money.
it's not the literal URL that is infringing but the file it points to.
I disagree. Say Aerith and Bob have accounts on MU. Aerith is authorized to distribute copies of a given work, but Bob is not. Only Bob's URL is infringing.
You mean RIAA owns all music
Now that Vivendi has sold its TV and movie assets to GE and Comcast, and now that Time Warner has sold its record labels to Access Industries, you're right that Sony is the only major record label that's also a major movie studio. Yet I'm under the impression that the movie studios still maintain relationships with record labels for movie soundtracks and music video production. So there's still very much a MAFIAA.
Infringing copyright to consume and enjoy material someone else has produced
Say I consume and enjoy material someone else has produced under license from someone else. That doesn't stop a third party from making a copyright claim on someone else's material. We've seen a third party make a copyright claim on bird songs of all things.
Recording artists from major labels now put their songs on youtube for free and still sell copies. Why they are still getting bent out of shape over file sharing is beyond me.
They're not. The middle-men, i.e., the RIAA, is the one getting bent out of shape.
The internet has basically eroded their hold on distribution and they're fucking pissed off about it. The whole "stealing from artists" line is just propaganda, the RIAA has been fucking stealing from artists since it's inception. Here's a suit from just a few years ago that, using their own calculations when going after individual copyright-infringers, found $6 BILLION in damages due to piracy by the CRIA (the Canadian wing of the RIAA). They later settled for $45 million, less than 1% of the original damages.
And then there's their latest legal arguments. In their case against Redigi, the RIAA argued that an MP3 downloaded from the internet was not owned, it was licensed, and therefore First Sale Doctrine did not apply. That's nothing new; we've heard that argument a billion times. The funny part is, while that case with Redigi was being argued, the RIAA was being sued for not paying disco group Sister Sledge their contracted royalties. See, they were contracted to receive a small percentage of "sales" revenue, and a higher percentage of "licensing" revenue. The RIAA, in a fit of irony it seems, argued that the music they sell online isn't licensed, it's sold, and thus, the group was not due the higher percentage of royalties for their online music 'sales'.
So, according to the RIAA, music sold online is both licensed and sold, depending on whichever argument justifies their thievery in open court.
Anyone defending these fucking assholes should have their head examined.
MPAA may be full of shit, but at the same time it's annoying how anti-piracy comments always get robotically modded down in Slashdot. I just think it's good to look objectively at both sides of the coin.
Both sides of WHAT coin? "Anti-piracy" is "anti-sharing". A sane society shares ideas. Copyright was supposed to be a temporary monopoly on the act of copying so that creators (not corporations) could gain some financial benefit before the work entered the public domain, about a generation after it was created. Now, there's no such deal; no work has entered the public domain since 1923, and they are unlikely ever to as long as Disney keeps buying copyright extensions (20 years every 18 years that go by, for the past two such).
An AC compared obeying copyright law to rounding up Jews. That is a bit over the top, but look at the erosion of liberties in the pursuit of one small industry's profits! The other side of that coin is a return to Constitutionality, and there is no compromise when it comes to the supreme law of the land. So, I suppose look at both sides, but choosing the unconstitutional side would not be beneficial to society.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Oh man, the bottlecap could be made of rubber and shaped like a bat's head and you'd open it by biting it off.
I would buy it by the case.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Similar laws have already been passed under the name private copying levy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
Levies are often considered a compensation for illegal file sharing.
MPAA may be full of shit, but at the same time it's annoying how anti-piracy comments always get robotically modded down in Slashdot. I just think it's good to look objectively at both sides of the coin.
To reiterate what the previous response has already pointed out, the comments that get modded down are not flagged as trolls because they're anti-piracy, it's because they are actually trolls. The arguments they put forth almost invariably consist entirely of some combination of rhetorical exaggeration, false analogies, tautological question begging and unjustified moral indignation. They provide no reasoning, they're just pure flame bait.
The main problem with the "anti-piracy" position is that there is almost nothing legitimate they can ask for that they do not already have. The existing laws go so far above and beyond what is reasonable to "fight piracy" that anyone arguing in favor of further extensions is inherently a dangerous extremist seemingly incapable of articulating a justifiable position. They advance an unsustainable framework of debate over which the only possible subject of compromise is the magnitude and timing of further increases in enforcement powers, rather than facilitating necessary and productive efforts to mitigate the outrageous damage already being caused by the legislation that their previous efforts have pushed through against all reason and justice.
This isn't about women or boys getting fired. This is about principles. Copyright originally had a limited term and it no longer effectively does, to society's detriment. I'm not spinning any sort of downloading of any specific show or piece of media. I'm saying there's a beast in Washington that is destroying our rights. And it won't stop until it has sucked all the gold off the table, like in Cowboys and Aliens. We've tried changing the laws, see Eldred v. Ashcroft.
Just like the laws against pot; you can choose to follow them and have your health suffer; or you can choose to break an unjust law, and help to cure the tumors that are constantly being created in your body. Knowing full well that the laws will likely not change during your lifetime; so what do the laws matter? Your health is far more important than some bureaucrat thousands of miles away defending Heart's forests, or Dupont's nylons, by unconstitutionally violating your rights.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
OK, this is a great example of this so let's go through it and I'll explain:
We already share ideas. We publish them in these things called scientific journals. You can even purchase books which explain these ideas in a clear and lucid style. But even otherwise forcing someone to share something is also what a sane society does not do.
Copyright is a prohibition on sharing. You are now claiming that its absence would be to force people to share. This is obviously a lie; something is not mandatory just because it isn't prohibited.
Trying to spin downloading an episode of The Office as "sharing ideas" is ridiculous. Though entitled people such as yourself already assume that you are free to enjoy other peoples hard work by breaking copyright law. I don't get why people are opposed to enforcing laws.
An unsupported conclusory statement, then an ad hominem attack followed by appeal to authority and a non-sequitur. You're really racking up the points there -- and the first three are pretty obvious, so let me just point out the last one in case anyone is wondering: There is a difference between "knowingly and willfully distributing The Office should be copyright infringement" and "all websites that host user generated content should be shut down, including the ones that process DMCA take downs, because users post a lot of infringing material."
The thing people object to is not "enforcing the laws" it is "enforcing the laws in a way that causes massive collateral damage to innocent third parties and reinforces the RIAA and MPAA distribution cartels by destroying new distribution channels that allow independent artists to get free exposure." Find an enforcement method with a sufficiently low false positive rate that it doesn't significantly impede fair use or innocent people and you won't hear the same objections.
If you don't like the laws get them changed. Ah.. but that is too hard, because that would actually require some amount of self-sacrifice. I suppose you want others to do that for you too.
Condescension combined with incompetence. A new low!
Hint: The way laws get changed starts with people communicating the problems with existing laws to other people, until enough of them understand and are vocal about the issue that Congress feels enough pressure to actually do something about it. That does eventually require people to put in some effort, but your sarcastic bloviating has provided no evidence that people are unwilling to actually do that.
So stick it to the man, and get the makup woman or the spot boy or the lighting technician fired. We already know who gets fired when the revenue stops. It ain't the CEO.
This is so flagrantly incorrect that it makes me suspect that I'm being trolled. You can't make a movie without a support crew, and the CEO has no job if he isn't making movies. Moreover, they're more likely to fire the CEO for missing earnings estimates than they are likely to stop making movies -- and let's not forget for a second that Hollywood continues to set revenue records almost every year.
Which isn't at all to say that the lighting tech doesn't have his job on the chopping block -- it's just not at all due to piracy. Rather, it's due to the studios being so consolidated that it's more profitable to make fewer movies that each have a higher gross than it is to make more movies which compete with the studio's own competing films for the same entertainment dollars. You want more lighting tech jobs, break out the antitrust laws and bust up the studios so that you have more studios to make more movies.
My wife is a musician and we are quite ok without locking the internet down.
Cool. Since you're so pro-sharing... post a link to the mp3s once she releases her music. I'll make sure everyone gets access to it and when she makes $0.0 we'll see how she likes "sharing".
Recording artists from major labels now put their songs on youtube for free and still sell copies.
Wow.. so someone got robbed and he _STILL_ has some money left in his wallet ! What the fuck? See ! He still has money ! Wow ! Isn't that a miracle ! Stealing is good !
You people are so full of shit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/22/author-raises-1m-self-publish-webcomic
Producers of the fun little web comic known as Order of the Stick have the entire series available for free on their web site, effectively giving it away to anyone who wants to download the individual pages to their computers. But despite this, they still managed to raise $1,000,000 from fans who liked their work enough to support them so they can self publish a collected volume of their series.
This space unintentionally left blank.
A Chrome and Firefox plugin that automagically downloads files via combined methods. Multiple HTTP/FTP connections a la axel plus BT, ed2k, Freenet, TOR if available. That would mean, that magnet links should generally include all of those methods (not sure if they can.)
thegodmovie.com - watch it
If all you have to rely on are absurd hypotheticals, and hypothetical hypocrisy, you're sunk. Now sod off.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Magnet links are extensible. They can contain any arbitary number of hashes or other pieces of identifying info of any type. You could put a whole file in if you wanted, uuencoded, but this would defeat the purpose of a link.
It's an April Fools prank. If you check the DNS nameservers for the domain you can see that their name servers are still with their legitimate registrar, xname.org. If you do the same for megaupload.com, you can see that their nameservers were changed to "ns5.cirfu.net" (CIRFU standing for "Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit", an FBI division). You can even see the difference in the banner image between TechPowerUp and MegaUpload as well.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
You have to actually demonstrate that they are morally equivalent.
No I don't, because nobody in this thread has claimed that they are morally equivalent. You're obviously having trouble understanding this, so I'll try to give you a better explanation.
This AC in a post titled "Thats great news" stated that "Breaking the law is breaking the law." making (in context) a direct implication that breaching copyright is wrong because it is against the law.
This AC posted "Breaking the law is breaking the law! Turn in anyone on your block hiding filthy Jews today!"
The implication in the second AC's post is not that saving Jews is equivalent to copyright infringement but that the legal status of an action is not a definitive indicator of it's moral status.
The original argument is:
[Breaking the law] is [wrong]
[Copyright infringement] is [Breaking the law]
therefore
[Copyright infringement] is [wrong]
The reply is (expounded and adjusted for sarcasm):
[Saving jews] is [right]
[Saving jews] was [Breaking the law]
therefore the statement:
"[Breaking the law] is [wrong]" is incorrect.
If you persist in "not understanding" this point, I will assume you are a troll and won't reply again, because I don't see how anybody could be simultaneously that stupid and able to type.
I will also reply to this AC post here. Everyone already has access, my wife's music is on youtube. I won't be posting a link for you to troll her page, but she does what she can to get as many people as possible to listen to it. If they like it, they can also follow the links to the paid downloads.
Recording artists from major labels now put their songs on youtube for free and still sell copies.
Wow.. so someone got robbed and he _STILL_ has some money left in his wallet ! What the fuck? See ! He still has money ! Wow ! Isn't that a miracle ! Stealing is good !
So authorized downloading from the copyright holders is stealing now too, is it? Amazing. You should tell VEVO. Listening to the radio must be stealing too, right? No wonder you guys post AC.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
They're not. The middle-men, i.e., the RIAA, is the one getting bent out of shape.
There is a fair bit of overlap between the RIAA and VEVO. Effectively the organizations putting songs on youtube are the same ones complaining about downloading. It's quite bizarre. The behavior you've pointed out is unquestionably dishonest. What I'm pointing out is that they seem to be actually crazy, and I mean that in the padded cell and medication sense.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Copyright originally had a limited term and it no longer effectively does, to society's detriment. [...] like in Cowboys and Aliens.
Your arguments seem to revolve around the length of copyright (which I agree is currently stupid), yet tellingly your example is a movie from last year. I'd wager that 99% of pirated material is from the last decade. Even if copyrights expired after the original 14 years, this conflict would be largely unchanged.
Just like the laws against pot [...] cure the tumors
Similarly, you've chosen an edge case, when 99% of marijuana use is recreational. Even if medicinal use was legalised, this conflict would be largely unchanged.
Copyright is a prohibition on sharing. You are now claiming that its absence would be to force people to share. This is obviously a lie; something is not mandatory just because it isn't prohibited.
You're doing the same thing. Copyright is not forcing people to not share, it just gives them the right to choose how they share.
The thing people object to is not "enforcing the laws" it is "enforcing the laws in a way that causes massive collateral damage
I'm not so sure. There is a wide array of opinions but many seem to argue that copyright itself is unnatural and should be abolished. The GP seems to be responding, or assuming, that. This stance is more interesting to debate than "big lobby conglomerate behaves unethically".
Rather, it's due to the studios being so consolidated that it's more profitable to make fewer movies that each have a higher gross
Agreed, capitalism and globalisation seem to head towards monopolies. With instant global distribution the world needs less movies and musicians - we can choose the best worldwide, not just in our village.
I appreciate your thoughtful post, but I think there's something to the modding complaints. In most discussions there are far less trolls than people believe (the old incompetence vs malice thing) and it's really tricky to try to see an opposing viewpoint as 'interesting perspective' rather than 'unbelievably stupid'. Further, almost all comments make use of fallacies, and if you disagree with the comment this will really stand out. In fact, being more on the anti-piracy side myself, your post revealed a few mistakes in the GP that my mind naturally skipped over.
What I see are plenty of pro-piracy (or anti-**AA), sarcastic and exaggerated one-liners that get modded +5 when to me they are throw-away lines that don't contribute to the debate. In an emotionally-charged topic such as copyright modders are more inclined to use negative mods which just ends up silencing the minority opinion.
I intentionally chose that analogy because it was a recent work that people who were exposed to it would understand. And you're right, I did consider that the reference I chose was not yet in the public domain. That doesn't really seem "tellingly" to me. And with the laws on pot, it's not an edge case; humans are social creatures, and we like to be around other humans. You can't really separate "recreational" from "healing" in a similar way that you can't separate "recreational" from "making offspring"; when you prolong your life, it feels good. We're wired that way. See the documentary "What if Cannabis Cured Cancer?".
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
You're doing the same thing. Copyright is not forcing people to not share, it just gives them the right to choose how they share.
I think it's pretty fair to say that copyright forces people other than the copyright holder to not share (without the copyright holder's permission). The key is in understanding what copyright does: An author can decide whether to share the work whether the copyright has expired or not. Even without a copyright, the author can post the manuscript on the internet and share it with whoever they like or stick in a safe and never share it with anyone. Copyright is not about what the copyright holder can do, it's about what other people can do. If there is no copyright, anyone with a copy of the work can share it with anyone. If there is copyright, those people can only do so with the copyright holder's authorization, i.e. they're forced not to share without authorization.
Obviously the would-be copyright holder has an interest in the latter outcome, because if everyone else is forced not to share then the copyright holder has a monopoly and can charge a monopoly rent for copies of the work. But saying that the former outcome is "forcing the copyright holder to share" has the same flavor as saying that not prohibiting Sonic.net from building a fiber network in an area already served by Comcast is "forcing Comcast to share" the market for internet service: It presupposes the existence of some legitimate right on the part of the would-be monopoly holder to exclude others from the market. Which makes it a frivolous argument in support of the creation or maintenance of such a right, because it's question begging. The argument takes the form "copyright holders should have a right to force others not to share copyrighted works because copyright holders should not be forced to allow others to share copyrighted works." The reasoning is entirely circular; it assumes the existence and legitimacy of the right it purports to justify the existence and legitimacy of.
I'm not so sure. There is a wide array of opinions but many seem to argue that copyright itself is unnatural and should be abolished. The GP seems to be responding, or assuming, that. This stance is more interesting to debate than "big lobby conglomerate behaves unethically".
I don't mean to suggest that no one has ever advocated the abolition of copyright, but those people are a small (if vocal) minority. Hardly anyone is going to support the proposition that creators should never be compensated even for the commercial exploitation of their works, and none of those people have the political power to actually accomplish it.
The real questions are what the contours of copyright should look like: How much copyright terms should be reduced, how best to realign penalties for entirely noncommercial use like P2P so as to be commensurate with the act rather than wildly disproportionate, how to mitigate the collateral damage and harm to innovation caused by overly aggressive copyright enforcement measures, etc.
The problem with the "anti-piracy" position is that most of the specific complaints people have about copyright enforcement are not in the nature of objecting to copyright enforcement whatsoever, but rather objecting to specific flaws: Lack of due process, presumption of guilt, prior restraints, excessively many false positives, outrageous penalties, harm to innovation, etc. I have never seen self-proclaimed anti-piracy crusaders actually address these issues. To the extent they even recognize the existence of a concern, the response is almost universally to downplay its significance rather than propose any effective method to actually address it.
Even to the extent that some are interested in arguing against the absolutist no-copyright-whatsoever position, it seems like the arguments they produce are not particularly productive. I mean what's with the one liners? If all you have to say is in the nature of "pirates can go to hell" or "authors