A large portion of the population also commits theft*. Doesn't mean it should be legalised.

I'm not going to sit here and deny that I have downloaded or shared movies (though I admit to nothing). But how can you justify a push to make copyright infringement legal, merely because it's done for non-commercial purposes? I mean, sure, infringement for commercial purposes is a bigger problem, because it happens on a larger scale. But copyright exists to encourage people to innovate and create.

Why would I invest days/weeks/months/years of my time, and hundreds/thousands/millions of dollars in creating something to sell to people who can make good use of it (as opposed to spending that time working for a salary, and simply holding on to my money) if you have a right to just use it without paying me?

Yes, I am aware of the open-source arguments, and yes, I have contributed to OS projects. But I have also taken time off work to try to create something new. I had to forego three months' salary, to do it. I simply could not afford to give it away for free, because, strangely enough, I couldn't find a landlord who'd give me her house for free, or a supermarket that would donate food to the cause.

OS software works because it's easy for many people to collaborate, and the equipment required to develop software is relatively cheap. The same does not apply to all software, and certainly not to something like music or film, which, at a professional level, simply can't be done without paying for access to specialised, expensive equipment, and specialist people to operate that equipment.

Your position would mean that if I produce something that's useful for commerce, then I deserve to be paid, but if I produce something for personal use (such as a music album or a film), I have to do it out of charity.

As it happens, I do compose music and write lyrics, I do record that music, and I choose to make it available online for free. But that's a choice I made, and a choice I want to have.

There are a lot of problems with copyright law in its current state. Big corporations have certainly tipped the balance in their favour, with longer copyright periods, etc. When copyright was first conceived, individuals created intellectual property. Copyright periods generally ran for some period of time following the creator's death. Corporations, however, are not natural persons, so they cannot die.

There's also the matter of US courts, specifically, awarding outrageously high exemplary damages, which, in turn, means that people agree to higher settlements. In Australia we don't have this problem. Australian courts are far more realistic in awarding damages, and also tend to punish plaintiffs that bring actions over very small matters. There's a reason why we haven't had many filesharing lawsuits in Australia. I believe that if a multi-billion dollar corporation went to the Federal Court to sue a teenager for downloading 300 songs, the Court would, likely as not, find in favour of the corporation (its copyright has, indeed, been infringed), but award only nominal damages.

The problem with your position is that it's just as bad as that of the corporations. There's a middle ground. You're both trying to tip the scales grossly in your favour. Right now the corporations are winning that particular tug of war. By all means, let's bring balance back in, but don't make the same mistakes in the other direction.

* I mean theft, not copyright infringement. You cannot steal intellectual property under Australian law. Copyright is a chose in action (intangible property). Theft is dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Since a copyright infringement does not permanently deprive the owner of the intellectual property, it is impossible to have the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the intellectual property, and therefore theft cannot be made out. Infringement merely depreciates the value of the intellectual property.

Here is the flaw in your argument.

They're not your movies. The medium on which the movie is stored belongs to you. The intellectual property in the movie does not. You merely purchased a restricted licence. You had the choice to purchase or not.

Now, I'm not about to say that I don't download movies (I neither confirm or deny that I do). I'm not going to run around and say you shouldn't do it, because I might, hypothetically, do it too.

But it's not like you have an inherent right to consume a work that someone else created, just as I don't have an inherent right to consume a work you have created. You may not produce films, or software, or music, but you own lots of (probably worthless) intellectual property in letters you write, notes you right, lies you think up, etc. I don't have in inherent right to read your letters. You don't have an inherent right to use the software I write, or to listen to the music I compose.

Elections.

There are a few important differences between the US and Australia that result in Australia's system not being quite as bad as the American system.

The most significant difference, in my view, is that we in Australia have preferential voting, as opposed to simple plurality (aka "first past the post") voting. This means that you don't "throw away" your vote if you support a minor party. You have to number every box in order of preference**, so you can give your higher preferences to minor parties and put the majors last, if you so wish. (Frankly, a lot of the minor parties are comprised of total nutjobs. Thankfully, most of the real nutjobs never get elected. Most. See Family First, below.)

** At the federal level, there is the option of voting for a party in the Senate. This is still equivalent to numbering every box. Your preferences will be allocated as directed by the party you vote for (and where those preferences go is published prior to election day). This option is available as matter of practicality, as there are often > 70 candidates (at least in my state, Victoria) for the 12 senate seats each of the 6 states holds (each of the 2 territories holds 2 senate seats).

This system means that many people do, in fact, vote for minor parties, comfortable in the knowledge that if their preferred candidate doesn't get up, their preferences will flow to their preferred major party (or perhaps another minor party).

Australia currently has 7 senators from minor parties, and 1 independent. Neither the Labor party (the [nominally] social democratic, centre-left party, which currently holds government) nor the Liberal(centre-right)-National(right) coalition (which held government from 1996 - 2007) holds a majority in the Senate. (Labor and the Libs each have 32 seats, and Nationals have 4 seats.) This means that the government cannot just force legislation through the Senate, but also means the opposition cannot just block legislation out of hand. One side or the other has to negotiate with the "cross-benchers" -- 5 Greens (Lefties), 1 Country Liberal (Right of the Liberal Party, left of the National Party), 1 Family First (right, also insane) and 1 independent.

This means that, generally speaking, there is effective control of the government.

We also have a lot less corporate influence, and far more regulated campaign process. Our national campaigns run in the order of weeks, not months or years. There are, of course, lobbyists, but you don't have corporate sponsorship of candidates, as you effectively have in the US. There have, however, been some allegations of corruption at state level in Queensland recently.

Australia is a parliamentary democracy, so we don't have a discrete Executive branch like the US. The Executive is formed out of the parliament. The person who has the confidence of the House of Representatives is the Prime Minister. In other words, the leader of the party (or parties, if there is a coalition, as we had 96 - 07) that holds the majority is the PM. Members of the Executive are drawn form both houses (the House of Reps and the Senate). Minister Conroy, for example, is a Senator for Victoria.

This does mean that the Executive will almost always be held by a major party. But the Senate, and therefore the legislature as a whole, is not, usually, dominated by a major party. Between July 2005 and and November 2007 the Liberal-National coalition held the majority in both houses. This resulted (in my view) in a disgraceful lack of accountability, and the then-government pushed through some very right-wing ideological laws, which were, ultimately, its undoing.

Now we (finally) have a Labor government, which is, believe it or not, a step in the right direction on many important issues. For example, aside from being denied the right to marry, same-sex couples now have virtually full equality under the law; we have government that doesn't deny the existence of climate change (though it isn't doing a whole lot to deal with it); and we have a government that is taking some small steps towards reconciliation with indigenous Australians.

Unfortunately, though, our illustrious Communications Minister comes from the right-most flanks of the Labor party. He appears, to me, to be motivated more by his own conservative religious beliefs than anything else.

Given that the US is a common law jurisdiction (presumably California is), you shouldn't be too concerned about the rule just being "reasonable care".

There will probably be a case (or a series of cases) that have defined exactly what that means. (I can't be sure; I'm studying law in Australia.)

It's also good, in a way, that it's not defined in any great detail. Imagine if the regs required a specific storage procedure that, because the regs were outdated, made it unlawful to store anything electronically. Leaving these matters open to interpretation by the courts means they can be reinterpreted in keeping with modern practices.

I disagree with the blanket "the French are rude" attitude that I often encounter in the English-speaking world (I have lived in Australia for most of my 27 years, and have lived in the US in the past).

While travelling in Paris a few years ago, I found most people to be quite polite, and helpful.

I have found that, no matter where you go in the non-English-speaking world, people don't respond favourably when you just assume that everyone can or should speak English.

Conversely, people appreciate you making an effort to speak the local language, even if you're not good at it.

When we arrived in Paris, and had to take the Metro to get to our hostel, my friend and I asked someone at a station for directions, in very broken, long-forgotten, high school French. The man smiled, asked us if we spoke English, and explained, in detail, where we needed to go.

He even ran after us when he realised he'd told us the wrong platform number.

Certainly far from rude. We had more encounters like this in Paris.

I had similar experiences in Sweden, and my friend had the same experience in Germany (I'm a fluent German speaker, so I didn't need to speak English there).

I don't think the French (or Parisians) are inherently rude. I think that, generally, if you're rude to people, then they will respond in kind.

If you're travelling through a country, it's a good idea to learn a few key phrases -- especially "thank you", "hello", "goodbye", "where is the toilet" and "do you speak English [or whatever other languages you speak]".

You'll be amazed how much more responsive people are when you can ask them, in their own language, if they speak English, rather than asking in English.