OK, what do people think of intellectual property laws/enforcement in the world right now? the US treats it stupidly, IMO, but I don't know about other countries.

Outdated, outmoded, enforced far too draconially, abused far beyond even its original intent and in ways highly detrimental to society, increasingly controlled by a corporate lobby not acting in the best interest of society as a whole, and in desperate need of reform.

The current model could use some revision, but it doesn't excuse piracy.

<quote name="Copyright Infringement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia#The term "piracy"">
The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" actually predates copyright itself. Even prior to the 1709 enactment of the Statute of Anne, generally recognized as the first copyright law, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy or theft (an early reference was made by Alfred Tennyson in the preface to his poem "The Lover's Tale" in 1879 where he mentions that sections of this work "have of late been mercilessly pirated").

The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time. Critics of the use of the term "piracy" to describe such practices contend that it unfairly equates copyright infringement with more sinister activity, though courts often hold that under law the two terms are interchangeable.
</quote>
- Source.

Well, it may be wrong to imply the two are equivalent, but it does make them both sound equally cool
Do you think Ninja'ing (in MMORPGs) is popular only because it profits the Ninja? Don't you think it has something to do with how cool being a Ninja seems?

Especially heinous is the way that certain lobbyists like to imply that filesharing is somehow linked to real, serious organized crime such as drug trade, human trafficking, arms smuggling, etc.

Now, doubtless there are organized crime groups that deal in commercial software piracy and use it to fund other operations. This is especially common in the second world. But to imply that that's in any way typical, especially in the western world, is ludicrous, misleading, and nefarious. Most people are ordinary people sharing files with friends over peer-to-peer services and are just as appalled by organized crime as you and I. The link is frivolous, and it's extremely dishonest of lobbyists to try to make this link.

The sad part is people may be buying it.

Piracy is wrong but I dont think you should go to jail unless you are a reseller of the property. If a guy downloads 5.2 million songs how many can he really use. If this same guy starts selling these songs at school then we have a problem.

Without IP many ideas will die on the vine.

Could you cite your sources? I've never heard of that before... Moreso, you're acting like the lawmakers are mindless drones. They're people like you and me (most of them) and they understand the difference between piracy and especially heinous crimes.

IP is the foundation of a number of industries. If you make it permitted to openly copy and distribute it at no cost then these industries disappear and so do the products. AFAIK, typical piracy will only result in large fines if you are caught -- no jail time that I've heard of.

Sure. It doesn't change my argument.

Absolutely. One of the earliest sources is a 2003 report shown to the House where Department of Justice attorney general John G. Malcolm testified about "organized crime groups called warez groups", and MPAA president Jack Valenti claimed links between 9/11 and file sharing:

He also said the following:

As well as this:

And remember, this isn't some small fry. This is the president of the Motion Picture Association of America. Testifying before Congress. Here is an article about the event.

More recently, just last year the IFPI accused filesharers of funding terrorism:

Again, this is an official lobbying organization pretty much outright accusing filesharers of supporting terrorism, a highly politically charged and nefarious thing to say these days. Yes, I know, technically what they're saying right there is true; but the way it's being put forward, especially as part of that list there, is painting a very ugly and deliberately misleading picture of what's actually going on. Muddling the lines in order to make it seem like everyone who downloads stuff on the Internet is tacitly supporting murderous criminals is exactly what they want to achieve.

No one is saying get rid of IP. They are however saying the current rules MAKE NO SENSE.

Fixed.

That was the true intent. corporate lobbyists however have changed the meaning through insane changes to the law.

Source text, being the testimony of Jack Valenti.

Actually, that is incorrect. Copyright was established by the Statute of Anne, and was, from day one, intended to protect the distributors of works. It's a common misconception that copyright is intended to protect the creator of the work, but it isn't and it never has been.

Append: Also, heh, I was attending a talk by RMS the other week, where someone asked what his thoughts on piracy were, and he said "Well, I think attacking ships is awful."

Don't forget, publishing was also a "pirate" medium once. Information used to be locked up for only the elite to access, and the printing press made it available to everyone (who could read).