[pp.int.general] "Natural" law

[Reinier Bakels]

>    I may recall that many politicians support the idea of tough copyright
>    enforcement in order to learn youngsters again to respect property. 
> "Today
>    they steal a MP3, tomorrow a bycycle". Property needs to be respected. 
> A
>    basic human right.
>
> Yes, some politicians say this.  And they will continue to repeat such
> things until enough people reject the idea.
>
> Those who support sharing must refute their views of "human rights",
> not duck the issue.

OK. Please help me to explain this is nonsense. I would prefer non-legal 
arguments to address the issue ("look at it from a different angle") rather 
than trying to counter the argument head-on. Even in those legislations 
where the private copy is allowed, publishing for private copying 
(uploading) is not allowed, and using illegal material may be considered 
fencing. One might argue that the private copying exception actually was 
created because the police could not reasonably enforce copyright in private 
homes, but the counter argument is that with the development of p2p 
conceivably only one record is sold for the benefit of the artist, and 
everybody else benefits for free.
There is of course an answer, but it is not a legal answer - about the 
interpretation of a human right.
Correct me if I am wrong.

reinier