>How does one adapt? If distribution is dead than what's the alternative?

That's not my problem, to be blunt. I'm simply stating the fact that distribution as a business model is dead in the face of unlimited, near-costless sharing of data. It's really the same as with the burden of proof for the need for copyright: it's the task of the ones demanding a business model to find one. Not ours to provide you with one.

>Copyright still serves a very useful purpose and is far from evil in and of itself.

That's your opinion and I do not share it. I consider the very idea of copyright unethical (or in other words, evil), and you will not convince me of the contrary.

>So instead of taking such extreme positions on this why don't we come to our senses and all agree that protections need to be scaled back but not gotten rid of.

This statement works both ways. Why don't we come to our senses and stop the insanity that is copyright already? We can throw phrases like this at each other all day long.

>You wouldn't tell a convenience store they now have to find a new way of doing things because they can't stop the shoplifters.

And again the stealing analogy. Stop it already, repetition does not make something correct. There's a reason theft is unethical, and that is because you take something away from the other person. Copying involves no loss for anybody, there is only gain.

>There are people who create things that neither want to profit from them nor share them with the world.

So? They don't need to publish it then. I do not see any problem. If a lack of copyright forces people to finally think a bit about the security of their data, I'm more than fine with it.

>Your diary is up for grabs in this type of world and if ever someone felt like publishing it as their own or selling it there'd be nothing you could do about it.

If I'm dumb enough to put it on the internet, then I will have to deal with that. It's like crying that people can see what you publicly post on Facebook.

>That tutorial you wrote on your blog, the one that's free to access to anyone, well that just ended up in an O'Reilly book without credit and no one asked you. Sure, they won't make a killing off it in this world but it's pissing you off and you think "that's just not right".

Why would that piss me off? Sure, attribution would be nice, but in the end more people will read my tutorial. I do not see the problem.

>I'm wondering if all these great ideals the anti-copyright proponents talk about are the true goal or if there's a little bit of jealousy, sour grapes, and inferiority complexes thrown in there.

Really now, we're down to lame appeals to spite?

>Do we really need to base our work off of someone else's to make something better?

Why should we reinvent the wheel all the time? Besides, in the case of art, everything is based of something else. There is no art in the void.

>why don't we jump back to reality and get SOPA voted down, lobby to scale back copyright instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water and generally just be more realistice about these things.

Why don't we finally accept reality and get rid of copyright because it is a fundamentally broken concept that makes absolutely no sense in the face of globally available many-to-many communication technologies which enable near-costless sharing of information, like the internet?