Yes, he is. I don't know if he's passed the bar yet, but he has a law education. As for knowledge of IP law in general--I know more than you do about it, bucko. I may not be a law major, but I've taken plenty of classes on the topic as well as quite a bit of private research.

Copyright does not control how you may use a work.

It controls how you may COPY it. COPY as in redistribution.

To copy music from your cd to your pc may involve the word "copy" in lay terms, but it is not redistribution in the slightest unless it being on the pc is a form of distribution.

"but what if someone else comes along and listens to it, copies it off" then that is redistribution, or broadcast, and that is the act that infringes, not the copying from cd->computer.

Remember, this is not copy as in "the laser of the cd drive copies information off the cd and sends it through the wire to the speaker which copies it into the air which is then copied by your nerves in your ear, etc", but about redistributing the work to others. Untill another person has it, then it hasn't been redistributed. And the moment the other person gets it, it was that explicit link that was infringing the copyright, NOT anything else that made it happen, HOWEVER you would probably have to argue that in a court, as it is the sort of thing a judge should decide on.

Because they may argue that the prior things were a part of the redistribution process, whereas in reality they were a part of use.

And copyright cannot in any way controll usage. You may enter into a contractual agreement that controlls your usage of something, and that is what many products would like to imply (EULA's and the like) but that is not copyright law.

Will be crippled? Don't you mean IS crippled? That you very much doubt that the billion-dollar music industry IS crippled by people sharing songs.

Because, as I seem to recall, that is what people are doing. This is like the issue of gun control. Figuratively speaking, to the pro-"IP" crowd (that is the people that commonly state they are pro-IP but I suspect are really pro-aristocracy), you DO NOT have the option of no infringements, as they exists regardless of the law. ALL you can do is punish people for not abiding by your views of how they should live their lives, which IIRC is not what they elected you to do. How very aristocatic of you, how very statist. Yes there are finer points here, and I wish that people would be honest about these points, instead of ignoring them while spewing incoherent bs and doing whatever they want.

People should pay due compensation for any unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted works? YES I totally agree.

But:

People have no say in my unjust immoral laws and must bow down to my authority? Your usage of "my" property that you payed for is very unbecomming, someone else could just come along and grab a copy, but no I won't try you for that actual infringement, i'll just say that you can't have it like that at all, so then it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to infringe! Why would you want music on a computer, WHAT IF YOU INFRINGED "MY" RIGHTS! You're why we can't have good things, no such usage for you! AFTER ALL I AM YOUR LORD, YOU DARE TO DEFY ME?

People have been taken to court for pedantic frivilous reasons, there have been many such stories on slashdot look it up sometime. THAT is a real problem IMHO, i believe that legislation should be written to curb this threat to civilised society. Or is that unreasonable? How about these other laws such as the DMCA? If they exist then surely that is a precedent to consider in the level of scope and intrusiveness of laws, or are we just unworthy?

Technically, since every action you could take relating to a copyrighted work on the computer creates a copy (even if just in RAM), they can regulate anything, really.

I don't sanction commercial piracy (the only type for which I use the word), because they're making money off someone else's creativity. However, non-commercial illicit copying and the completely legal and harmless things like writing search engines that the RIAA etc have been suing people for is not a problem, in my view.

The "Copyright Clause" of the Constitution, which is, or should be, the basis of all our copyright law, is shown below.

Note it says nothing about protecting the rights of creators; the purpose is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". It also says nothing about "property" or "ownership" of creative content; it refers to "the exclusive right". This just is contrast to people such as Jack Valenti's ridiculous claim that copyright holders should have the same rights to their "property" as physical property owners.

By contrast, being exposed to people's creative works helps other people create. Coming up with music by watching movies and/or listening to music, for example. Getting "into the groove" of creating by listening/watching something that sparks the imagination, is paramount for progressing arts and sciences.

I am quite aware of that, and that's why you need copyright at all. The idea was to make it clear that copyright was not originally intended in the end to protect the rights of artists (it's a means to an end), and that copyright was never and should never be construed as a form of property--at least not in any way comparable to physical property.

I write this in all my files:

Does this make me a Greedy Bastard®™ ?

Well, if you have to bust your ass 50 to 60 hours a week at a regular job just to support the bureaucracy and Bush's war, there isn't a whole lot of time to be "creative". Unless you get compensated for that time so as to quit your regular job.

Keyword being reasonable.
Is it reasonable for the copyright holder to set the fee? Why?
Is it reasonable for the government (or other body in charge of "advancing arts and sciences") to set the fee? Why?
Is it reasonable for the recipient (the one that would use it to help encourage himself) to set the fee? Why?
Is it reasonable for the middle-man that had no part in the actual creation (only distribution) to set the fee? Why?

Then copyright/IP isn't about advancing art and sciences, it's about money. Granted, Arthur Kalliokoski has a point with creators being compensated so they actually have time to create, but even then it's not explicitly about money, it's about surviving (which just happens to be done with money).

If a creator makes something, and prices it so highly that nobody's willing to buy it, how would the situation for the creator be any different than if everyone got it for free?

Just so nobody else can do it, too. There are companies get/buy patents and copyrights just for the purpose of extorting money.