The argument that one third of the population "condones" non-commercial copyright infringement doesn't address the question about the "rightness" of copyright law but rather begs the question as to what it means to be law-abiding.
To use an automotive traffic analogy; If you strictly observe speed limits when there are no cops around, then you are "law-abiding". If you do not, then you are not "law-abiding" you simply fear the cops. In the case of the copyright law, the fact that one third of the population ignores them is simply an acknowledgement that there are no copyright cops around when it comes to their activities.
It may or may not be that copyright laws are properly constructed in their current form but, in our society, compliance is no measure of rightness.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument that one third of the population "condones" non-commercial copyright infringement doesn't address the question about the "rightness" of copyright law but rather begs the question as to what it means to be law-abiding. To use an automotive traffic analogy; If you strictly observe speed limits when there are no cops around, then you are "law-abiding". If you do not, then you are not "law-abiding" you simply fear the cops. In the case of the copyright law, the fact that one third of the population ignores them is simply an acknowledgement that there are no copyright cops around when it comes to their activities. It may or may not be that copyright laws are properly constructed in their current form but, in our society, compliance is no measure of rightness.