My position is and has been simple.
1 - owners of property have the right to protect it, however they wish, within the law
2 - those that acquire it illegally need to suffer for it when apprehended
3 - if they're not, something needs to change
Which of those do you have aproblem with?
Either you're satisfied with the laws as they exist, or you aren't. My position, personally, is that the law has not caught up to technology, and what I've read of the DMCA leaves me with the impression that it lags further & further behind as time passes. However, I do not see further restrictions making much sense. What I do see is a lot of hyperbole attempting to link garden-variety copyright infringement such as illegal downloading to terrorism.
From people like you.
I don't buy it. Show me some contrary examples to your #2 stated position, and I might just adjust my view.
Perhaps you'd care to address some of the points I made?
You like the DMCA?
The DMCA that was written by the World Intellectual Property Organization, a section of the United Nations, of which China, Iran, and Vietnam are all members?
The DMCA, that was implemented under the careful watch of Bill Clinton?
That's what you're advocating?