Holy Hyperbole, batman!

I argued that legally speaking, piracy is "theft", where "theft" is "taking something from someone without their permission." I further argued that the issue is much greater than that and people who argue "theft is theft" refuse or fail to see the larger aspects of the issue. I would say that's a pretty dispassionate, bias-free assessment of the crux of the argument. If you wanted to argue with it, you'd have to argue the legal definition of "theft" as well as the typical public interpretation of it.

You came out swinging with the argument that nobody has any right to anything lacking a physical form. Sure, you're backtracking in a couple places but the point stands:

You argued that intellectual property is a crime against humanity.

I'd say you did more than prove yourself an ideologue; I'd say you're acting like a froot loop.

So we're clear: there have always been and will always be abuses of intellectual property law. I'm not at all happy with lots of it. But you have no more rights to the labor of a composer than you do to the labor of a bricklayer. Arguing otherwise is...

...well, do your best. I'm honestly curious.