...I mean, sure, I'll argue that copyright laws are illegitimate on this basis. And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law".

If you can look at the world and conclude that a right to make something and use it as you see fit, in private and without harming others, does not exist, then I guess we just have a dramatically different perspective of the world in which we've arrived.

> But it's weird to the point of bordring (sic) on intentional distraction to try and pot this specific issue on the basis of a demand that doesn't apply to anything else.

You've assumed bad intentions and... I don't know what else to say. If I can see something with my eyes, save it in my brain, recall it later in a drawing, but can't do those same things with a computer, then the implications for the right of general-purpose computing (and for that matter, free thought) are just absolutely obvious.

Of course. But seeing is not illegal. It's the violent kidnapping part that it's illegal. But for some reason we're afraid to hold CBP accountable for that, so instead we want to make it illegal for everyone to see.