"if sharing is caring, why don't you share your bank account details?"

(Repeating myself) Privacy != copyright.

"And going back to tzs' point, pirating Iron Man 3 increases "capacity of thought"? Really?"

Sure, why not? A specific case like Iron Man 3, is frankly irrelevant when trying to formulate a general rule though - unless it provides a contradiction. The case of Iron Man 3 does not contradict my general rule - namely, that restricting copying for the sake of copyright is immoral (and my mom's rule: "sharing is caring"). Iron Man 3 is not worth copying IMHO, but just because I don't want it doesn't mean I care if someone else does. I cannot know how watching Iron Man 3 might help someone, and I'm not about to guess. But, it would be immoral IMHO to prevent them from copying it, since they are the ones paying for the process (ISP, HD, PC... It's all on their dime), and since copies are not held exclusively.

The work that went into making Iron Man 3 is done. The copies should have nothing to do with the economics: if the product of the process was not viable - without basing that viability on artificially impeding others' private computing and thinking actions - it should not have been done. I have no obligation to subsidize any wasteful endeavor.

Similarly, I do not keep Justin Bieber from charging for his time, in advance (like kickstarter) or afterwards (like most jobs), or accepting gratuities at any point. However, I do not support forcing gratuities with copyright. Copies are as good as thoughts to me, and IMHO it is simply too far past the line of reasonable for a society that claims to value knowledge to willfully prevent access to it. Paying for copies should be optional IMHO. Not everyone tips the same, and I am not breaking the law if I walk out without leaving anything.

"How are you charging twice if you ask two people to compensate you for the value you provided?"

It is paying more than once to pay more than the time and resources that go into a thing. Don't get me wrong - I am often willing to pay a premium (more than once) for physical goods rather than go without, or roll my own, but my good will only goes so far and I will generally not buy something terribly overpriced. In the case of physical objects, it is immoral to keep/take something without paying. In the case of copies, it is immoral to restrict copying for lack of paying. The difference is stark, and has everything to do with their respective natures and respective exclusivities. A physical book can only be in one place at a time - holding it deprives everyone else. Copies, quite to the contrary, can be made freely and each new copy does exactly zero damage to anyone. Again, do not confuse copyright for privacy. I will defend privacy. I will not defend copyright.

Your use of "value" is revealing. How "valuable" an idea/copy is to me is known only to me, and dies with me - you can have no insight into my mind other than what I reveal to you, nor should you (privacy!) - that's precisely why gratuities are optional, and why the copyright is pure fantasy (copyright and privacy contradict). Your economic rationalization of copyright is based on an insight you have no access to, and which there is no exclusivity to leverage me or anyone into revealing, since obligation is proportional to exclusivity. Since copies are not exclusive at all, obligation is negligible and payment ("should be"; de facto "is") 100% optional.

People share things they have with people they like. It makes sense that in the case of digital copies, without the exclusivity property, people will share liberally and anyone arguing against it will go blue in the face. Fighting that is fighting human nature...

"I know a few MBAs who'd love to get their world changing ideas implemented for free."

I do not work for free and do not expect anyone to, however: if I have already made something digital, anyone is free to use it.

"Ask yourself why printing money is restricted."

Money is not simply a copy, money is a unit of obligation embodied uniquely in an object or number. It retains exclusivity. A new unauthorized bill is a lie about an obligation, and an obligation that can be used for real goods, amounting to theft. Someone listening to Justin Bieber is not claiming to be Justin Bieber, and in no way harms Justin Bieber and is in no way "theft" since you cannot "trade" a copy as you would trade money because of the lack of exclusivity (even though copyright proponents really wish they could). Saying a copy reduces Justin Bieber's income because it represents lost income is like saying "because I said so." It's circular. Copyright is the only reason people expect payment for copies, and forcing payment is the reason people keep promoting copyright. (Fallacies 101) People were able to get away with it with books and CDs other other physical things, and now they expect to keep getting away with it, even though the physical bottom dropped out and it's 100% digital without any of the exclusivity, and there is no logic left.

"making copies can have economic consequences."

Correct, since making copies can empower someone, regardless of his or her economic background. You may call that communism but it has nothing to do with economics. In fact, I strongly value physical property and ideas, but I'm only willing to pay to own the former since ownership doesn't apply to a copy. You cannot own a sunrise. You can own a photograph or a painting of a sunrise, but you cannot own the meaning, aka: the information. I own my computer, but I do not own copies. Privacy is the line in the sand, and copyright exists beyond the need for privacy - at great expense. Why would I feel obligated to pay for a copy - something I cannot own? If I can't recognize any obligation to pay for copies - why are there laws enforcing payment (monopolies)? It is possible to wash off this muck and move forward.

To say it differently: copies are not worthless... Copies are priceless. A sunset is a thing of beauty. Charging for that is immoral. Charging for the creation and upkeep of a lookout area may be necessary for a popular spot, but the sunset itself is priceless and not the subject of ownership. Do governments charge for pictures of the landscape on copyright grounds? (Similarly, I would not privatize roads, even if that makes me a communist.) Copyright doesn't enter into it. People need privacy, not copyright.

Back to Communism - since it always comes back to that. Communism is simply the largest monopoly possible - a total government monopoly - therefore capitalism and communism are identical in the extreme, unless lines are drawn where necessary (and monopolies broken). (The price of liberty is eternal vigilance... Or something.) Promoting copyright (a monopoly on thoughts) seems to me to be advancing that end (going beyond a reasonable limit in order to inflict a monopoly), and I seem to recall you saying you were against communism (pardon my FUD).

"Are you saying people paying for content are stupid?"

Why does it have to be about insults? People who know how to do a thing should simply be free to, and not be held back for fictional reasons like copyright. Copies do not cause harm or deprivation. 1+1=2. Nothing is lost besides the malice associated with watching someone starve to death. Similarly, people who have a surplus and the desire to give, should be free to. People who leave tips are not stupid.

"I know some from ex-communist countries like Romania, old USSR, some current day states in India, etc. They all have a deep horror of communism. There is a reason it fails hard."

I'm not promoting communism (you brought it up), I'm saying the very comparison is a tangential emotional appeal, as it was with most of McCarthy's accusations. (Also, FWIW, my friends tend to agree with me too.)