That's extreme and violent. We can do better than this.

As someone who makes money selling software, I think we should abolish copyright and let these companies give contracts to their users which bind them not to share the songs and movies they bought.

Then it's up to the company to report when actual violation is occurring and bring, in a fair court case, whether a certain user shared the material or not, breaching their contract with the company.

If you access material shared breaching a contract you're not doing anything illegal.

If you're selling passively too many copies that enforcing all these contracts is too problematic or expensive, you can consider it a natural market tax on the huge profits you're making.

We shouldn't give shortcuts for companies to enforce their copyright, they have this problem specifically because they are the richest 1%.

No, we need to show strong opposition but using civil and democratic means.

To play devil's advocate: how, when they won't let us?

Who doesn't? And how exactly do they do prevent you from exercising your democratic rights?

What do you mean by “show strong opposition but using civil and democratic means”? Give me that, and I'll show you millions who can't, or that it isn't effective, or rejoice and change the world.

Here are a few:

  - engage in discussions
  - speak up against injustices
  - vote
  - join groups of like-minded people
  - exercise your right to demonstrate

Change is hard, and it is slow. That is usually not a bad thing; however, it requires persistence.

I'm currently stuck in Germany. Think about the late 80s when a whole state was brought down peacefully by the people of the German Democratic Republic. It was not a storm on the Reichstag that brought about the fall of the state, nor a military coup. It was a lot of different factors combined but an increasing pressure from the people played a central role in it. And, mind you, this was a regime that had no problem taking extreme measures against its own people, so certainly no easy circumstances to stand up against the authorities.

I understand that you want to prove a point and stick to your position, but in all honesty, I don't find your claim convincing.

People in the US cannot engage in discussions? You need to have political power to speak up against injustices? 98.5% of the US population has not been disenfranchised in 2020. Obviously, joining groups of like-minded people requires such groups to exist, but in the age of social media, they don't have to be physically around you any more.

I mean, without a doubt every single one of your points is true and applicable in some cases, but for the vast majority of people there is absolutely no problem doing any of the examples I listed.

Let's not forget our context here: the OP suggested deadly violence against "rentseekers", and I countered that more civil acts should be taken. I sure hope that despite your arguments above, you'd still be on my side in that question.

The first and fourth require like-minded people around you. The second requires some measure of personal political power. The last one requires both. The third requires you not to have been disenfranchised.

There are many people in the US who can't do any of those. I'm not sure how that compares to East Germany, since I have lived in neither country.