That is impossible.

This is the definition of hoarding:

“In economics, hoarding is the unfair practice of buying up resources so that they can be sold to customers for profit.”

If he were actually controlling your movements, it may be, but those circumstances would only transpire due to your own actions as you have full control of them. Only you can possibly put yourself in such a position or state that would transpire events that resultingly harm you.

“Or maybe even, like, a little kid. Physically harming a baby by hurting his parent, the author, in his wallet.”

Unless that parent was being targeted by a rival of sorts, a consumer cannot hurt the author, whether physically or financially. Do not expect sympathy in a business and do not expect laws to be created such that you will be guaranteed to stay in business. This is a very obvious business principle.

“I thought that was obvious.”

How does a poor financial position of the parent obviously lead to the physical harm of a the parent’s child?

“Have you never payed a bill?”

This is so much a begging for sympathy.

Again, they are extremely slow planners. As well, teletype machines have nothing to do with online-exclusive publications; digitizing text only to be read once it is physically printed does not mean online.

“As far as copyright ‘reform’, Well, maybe, but certainly not what you have in mind, because people don’t get to be in charge and make laws by ignoring reality outside of their own tiny world, whether that’s one issue they care a lot about or one information medium they spend too much time with.”

Non sequitur. You obviously cannot fathom what is called influence of interests on ignorance.

“People often do learn and grow, and start to understand the implications of their beliefs – and then they change them. That’s a good thing.”

No, the best thing to do is learn and grow and then derive the beliefs again on the basis of inference, to delete all implications; only then will those beliefs be considered acceptably plausible.

“[...] But p2p is legally, proactically and morally identical to publishing , and that right is constitutionally protected as well.”

There are several implausable statements in your single assertion:

1. P2P cannot be legally identical to publishing, since the pro-Copyright side demeans it to be illegal in the first place.
2. P2P is not practically identical to publishing, since publishing requires resources to produce the copies in tangible forms.
3. No two different actions can be logically morally identical, as morals are subject to bias and bias is not part of inference.

You are also oblivious to the fact that moral rights are distinct from the economic rights tied to copyrights.

The 4th amendment protects us against DPI.

Eurotrash may mess up individual liberties, but we wont.

BTW dorm room? Hardly. Its okay old timer, your selfish so-called Hippie generation is soon to pass.

What a waste. So much potential.

You just dont get it.

Are u willing to inspect each and every data packet?

So narrow minded Hume its rather sad

No worry. We’re actually waiting for the “digital natives” to gain political control. Your pre-Internet generation and outdated copyright laws are growing rather nauseating.

You just dont get it.

Unless you inspect each and every piece of data transferred on the Internet you cant stop P2P. If youre willing to do that than p2P is the least of our worries.

Lame Hume.

Some artist are adapting and being successful because of it. Nine Inch Nails, Arctic Monkeys, Scott Andrew, Tay Zonda, RadioHead, etc… Artist can survive in the new market, its just a different market. Your just blind and naive, and for whatever reason have a bias that is pro copyright. Why do you support copyright so much? What is your vested interest?