That's a fair point. I suppose it relates to why people follow laws in general: is it because all laws we've adopted are good? Is it because laws, by virtue of being a law, are good? Is it because we are afraid of being punished for violating the law? These are major legal and political science debates (e.g. H.L.A Hart, Ronald Dworkin, etc.).
Anyhow, point being, although the law may be unjust, punishment for disobeying the law is not either unexpected or unfair. So while we can bemoan that people are punished for violating copyright law, that doesn't mean that they weren't justly punished by a government enforcing the law.
2) that doesn't mean that they weren't justly punished
Didn't you equivocate on "justice" there?
If "justly" only means "legally", the second quote is right. There's a reason why the Department of Law-interpretation-and-enforcement is called "Department of Justice" instead. Lawyers love to think that they're administering justice and not simply a piece of legislation. But we should not fall for this linguistic trick and equivocate justice with what is legal.
Political philosophers often use the word "justice" or "fairness" to refer to some moral ideal that is above existing laws, and which we can appeal to in evaluating existing and proposed laws. There are disagreements about the content of this ideal, of course, but none of that makes the concept of justice less authoritative than positive law. On this definition, the first quote would stand, but the second quote wouldn't make much sense.
There's also a sizable literature on civil disobedience, whereby citizens are morally permitted -- or even required -- to disregard laws that they believe are grossly unfair or unjust (provided that certain other conditions are met). IIRC Dworkin wrote an article or two on this topic, and so did Rawls.
Sure--I don't disagree with you. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't engage in civil disobedience, in fact, I personally think that people should engage in civil disobedience as often as they feel morally compelled to.
In my last statement (and setting aside the word "just"), I was putting forward the legal positivist (i.e. HLA Hart) viewpoint that laws are valid by virtue of being law (without getting into what "law" is and so on). Accepting that copyright law is therefore a valid law on this level, I don't find its enforcement invalid. This is separate from whether I find the law sensible, or morally reprehensible, or whatever--and, depending on my views on that issue, I might want to disobey it and be justified in doing so. But, even if I think the law is completely insane, that's not saying that I would think of it as some artificial concept that I might completely ignore and then be shocked at being prosecuting for violating it, as a I read a previous post to suggest. By rebelling against it I am tacitly acknowledging that the law is what it is, and I should be prepared to accept the punishments.
Apologies if I am being opaque, it's obviously a minor point that has no real bearing on how people actually act.
Oh, I see. I agree. I wouldn't be surprised that a government tried to enforce positive law, the same way I wouldn't be surprised if the Mafia trashed your store because you failed to pay for protection. Just because the powers that be are wrong doesn't mean that their threats are any less real. To disagree would be naive.
It's also great to meet someone who knows that legal positivism is not incompatible with the existence of valid but unjust laws. Seen too many first-time philosophy of law students who don't seem to understand this!
Anyhow, point being, although the law may be unjust, punishment for disobeying the law is not either unexpected or unfair. So while we can bemoan that people are punished for violating copyright law, that doesn't mean that they weren't justly punished by a government enforcing the law.