"You've already conceded that you would tolerate an artist robbing his label in retaliation for being cheated by them."
I have conceded no such thing. I merely asked if you were one of those who were harmed by those practices.
As for my answers to the two questions about colonial America, I answered fully. Had we not gone to war with England, then such lawbreakers would have been arrested. They chose to wage war instead, and won. Had they not won, then they would be obligated to follow the laws or face the consequences.
Should they have been arrested? Certainly, under the laws of the day. Instead, they founded a new nation, with its own set of laws. That is the alternative. It worked great.
As for the congress, I have no more to say about that. The mechanism exists to replace the entire Congress. Use that mechanism or not. It's up to you.
Essentially, this is all a silly issue, except that it involves illegal actions. You can spend considerable time downloading copyright material illegally, or you can spend some money and buy your own copy. I prefer doing things legally. That way I never worry about being fined or worse. It's also the right thing to do, and I do try very hard to do what's right.
And in doing so (asking if I was one of these cheated artists), you implicitly justified thievery on the part of the artist. No other interpretation of your remark would make any sense, unless of course, you were asking me that question out of idle curiosity -- were you?
Even if a file sharer is not one of those artists, he may well be one of the millions of cheated consumers and the justification would be the same.
All parties to this controversy are law breakers, every one of them. The industry, the Congress and the file sharers. In this area, rule of law has failed. That much has been clear for the longest time. Historically, whenever that happens, adjudication is had by other means, in this case, economic warfare.