There seems to be a bit of animus against the copyright police. But copyright is (a) the natural reward of the creator (Germano/French/Napoleonic legal theory) (b) part of a bargain with the creator to reward him for the benefits his creation bestows on society (English theory and/or (c) provided for in the constitution (US theory) (d) required by international treaties.

If there were no copyright, authors would starve for they would have no way to earn from their work. It is the power of the authors to prohibit use of their work which supports the market value. A mere right of remuneration would necessarily produce lower earnings. So why do people object when "the copyright police" object to the reproduction of copyright works without payment? Should we care here at the digital tradition, for the traditional is by definition out of copyright and not subject to the hands of the copyright police?

Over to you guys (of all genders without distinction or preference).