I mean, I care (though not for something whose creators are long since dead and whom you can't support any more). But in general, I certainly try to avoid piracy. I think it's immoral and while I don't think it makes one a bad person (I myself used to pirate a ton of stuff when I had no money to buy it), I do think it's a thing that a good person should strive to avoid.

At the time that it was published, it would've been public domain by 1995 (so its creators might reasonably be alive at expiration). Anyone would be able to legally reprint it. Was that immoral? Or was it immoral to monopolize culture for another 1-2 generations?

Back up here:

>"I care (though not for something whose creators are long since dead and whom you can't support any more)."

>"I think it's immoral"

King Herod makes the Kill Babies Act and now you consider it immoral not to kill babies?

You justified copyright by suggesting it was about supporting creators. So you at least consider the moral justification to end at the creators death?

It just really interests me how copyright terms which were grown purely to support corporations so they wouldn't have to be creative (read that as would but need to employ people, or pay people for creativity) can have people figuratively clutching pearls.