Historic Copyright Law & Immoral vs Illegal (Score 1)

Allowing owners to duplicate copyright material that they own is a relatively new phenomenon. And is still illegal in many countries, for example, here in Australia the law was updated less then 12 months ago (December 2006) - http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/G070.pdf. Before these recent updates (I believe similar changes have occurred in the UK, Canada and the US, not sure about other countries) this argument fell into the illegal but moral category which tends to outrage fair-use proponents.
Old laws:
moral & legal: Use of purchased material
moral & illegal: Copying material for own use
immoral & illegal: Copying material for someone else

New laws:
moral & legal: Use of purchased material & copying for own use
moral & illegal: Copying material with copy protection for own use
immoral & illegal: Copying material for someone else
immoral & legal: Applying DRM which actually makes copying for own use illegal because of DMCA like laws


So new copyright laws are better, but still crud.