Well, under the law, things are different.

I am talking about morality. A song I wrote is just as mine as a car I purchased or a house I built.

speaking up for rent collectors and speculators

I see, that your morality allows you to rob some people.

But mine does not. We've established you to be a Communist-sympathizer before. Nothing new here, hop along.

Ideas are not physical things.

And "property" is not a physical thing either.

The taking of real, physical property involves real, involuntary displacement or separation.

Distinction without difference. You copying my drawings, notes, or recording without my approval is still theft — even if I still hold on to my copies of same.

And not because FBI says so, but because it is indistinguishable in its effect from the theft of tangible things — the victim (inventor, creator, or whoever bought the invention/creation) still suffers real tangible losses.

Careful that what you are calling plagiarism really is plagiarism.

I have not called it that — I merely asked for evidence, copyright stifles art. What was offered as evidence was a list of cases, where works deemed plagiarization were sued for copyright violations. That, in my opinion, is a good thing — and I asked, whether the "informative" Mr. Slippery disagrees.

The entertainment industry would love, just love to turn the clock back to 1985

Irrelevant. The talk is about copyright, not "entertainment industry".

They would throw 90% of all our wealth away, their own included, if that increased their control

Though they are welcome to treat their money however they wanted, I fail to see, how they could possibly get mine. Or yours... If you disapprove of their practices, the solution is very simple: do not buy from them.

Famous Copyright Infringement Plagiarism cases in Music

So, are you arguing, it should be easier to engage in plagiarism?

Recently it was made illegal to make music that sounds like other artists

Then it is that action is what should be discussed, rather than extension of copyrights.

Most everything is derivative. It's not possible to be uninfluenced by copyrighted material.

Unless you can demonstrate, how copyright makes such influence illegal — and the development of various music genres proves the opposite — then your above sentence is irrelevant and does a disservice to the argument.

Also, how is it remotely fair that the IP owners can perpetually reap income from work that was performed even 10 years ago let alone 70?

As long as people still want to hear it, read it, or otherwise use it, then the creation was particularly useful and you (or your ancestors) should continue to be rewarded for it. Seems just as fair as your ability to live in the same house or swim in the same (privately-owned) lake for many years.

Most of us get paid once for the work we do.

Because most of us work for somebody else. We sell the results of our labors in advance to the willing buyer (employer) — and do not own it. Now, what we do own, we get to use (and profit from) for ever.

IP does not exist. It's a figment of our collective imagination.

All property rights are a social construct — and some even consider it to be "theft". If you aren't going to advocate that self-denying point of view, then your whining about Intellectual property is just as irrelevant...

Very little music is created in a vacuum, and the line between 'inspiration' and 'derived work' can be fuzzy and subjective.

So, are you ready to demonstrate, how copyrights have sniffled the development of Jazz, Rock-n-Roll, or Rap, for example?

If not, then your "concerns" about sniffling are nothing but attempts to spread FUD.

Prepare for another culture-shock, my dear passport-less American. Tokyo has competing privately-owned subway lines. Japan's wonderful highspeed trains are privately-owned too.

Now, if a country introduced to free market capitalism (at gun-point) by America does not need socialized transit, why must America herself suffer it?

setting up your urban environment in such a way that the poor need to drive expensive-to-maintain, expensive-to-fuel vehicles a long distance is not a necessity

A strawman. Nobody claimed it to be a necessity. Good job scoring an imaginary point.

Smart urban planning

If a government is doing it, it can not be smart...

It is great, that the Fourth Amendment still means something.

Now, how about the Second?

This about making country independent energy-wise too.

Yeah, yeah — and reduce Global Warming, right.

Except electric cars still need energy — so, instead of burning something inside the vehicle, we now have to burn something somewhere else — often enough losing overall. And instead of depending on our own oil, we now need the Chinese to make those wonder-batteries — so our dependence on the potential military rival only grows with each Tesla sold.

But a great idea otherwise — as great as any to come up from the so-called "progressives"... Keep at it.

oligarchy of the rich and powerful.

All oligarchies are "of the rich and powerful". If you can not make your point without tautologies, it is probably invalid to begin with.

Because no lender in their right mind would loan students money to begin with.

If there has been a "bold-faced lie" in this thread, you are it. Banks were making them and even continue making them today, despite government competition. Here is one example — from a credit-card issuer — and a simple Google-search returns many more.

No lender would take that kind of risk, especially at a measly 7% interest rate - typical unsecured loans are closer to 20-30% (you know them as credit cards).

That this is bovine excrement is already established. Here is why... Unlike those "typical unsecured loans", which are spent on quickly-depreciating merchandize or completely worthless vacations, education usually increases the person's money-earning abilities. They earn and they do pay back — a large enough portion to keep lenders in the green.

Government's student loans is the solution searching for problem at best. At worst it is the first step towards nationalizing higher education the way schools are nationalized already — while affording the government better control over citizens by attaching various strings to the approvals (you can't get a loan without registering for Selective Service, for example).

It is (or can quickly become) an instrument of oppression and needs to be rejected and ridiculed, not celebrated...