Whethers its judges, politicians, companies, or public opinion overall, it can take years for the viewpoint of the 'experts' to become mainstream. We look at this stuff 24/7, most other people are thinking about it with 1% of their time.
I don't think its just us either, if you dive into a community of people focused on medicine or energy, they are 5 years ahead of you and I as well. It just takes a long time to percolate outwards from the experts to the laymen.
I was with you up to that point. I think you would find that the majority of HN doesn't have a lot of sympathy for those who would distribute other people's creative works in violation of said creator's copyrights.
After all, the same thing that protects authors rights in the GPL underly the rights belonging to the creators of "Game of Thrones".
Let's not stretch something that 95%+ of us agree on (You should't be able to copyright an API) into a place where there isn't consensus.
(Especially how it's turned out -- the few cases that went to court and proceeded to a verdict have absurdly huge penalties; the suits were structured so that often an accusee's best strategy is immediate settlement even if innocent.)
Many of us do rely on IP law to get paid, and there do need to be ways to reward and encourage creative work, but there also needs to be a balance.
However, instead of doing away with copyright entirely, I would prefer to see copyright only enforceable when the redistribution is directly for-profit: that is, but for a payment, the copied or derived work would not be available. (Worded that way to prevent "commercial redistribution" from including software published on blogs with ads and similar venues.)
GPL would still mostly apply in that ideal fantasy world, because who wants to violate the GPL except to distribute something for profit? All the notable GPL violations I can think of have been the result of commercial interests (preventing competitors from copying something you're trying to sell).
The GPL is really a stop-gap measure. It cleverly turns copyright law against itself, and manages to use an existing legal framework to achieve a completely different end. However, it would be even better if it did not have to exist and all code was always open source. The whole free software movement is about not having software protected by copyright or even implicitly protected by being closed-source: it's the software that has to be free, in the sense of freedom.
In short, while the GPL does use copyright, it's just an implementation detail. The actual effects are the opposite--it uses copyright law to neuter copyrights so that the users' freedom is always preserved.
Plus, in a selfish way, I'd love if Microsoft, Dassault, et al started enforcing their copyright on software harder. That would push more people towards open source and alternate solutions. Piracy really undermines one of the major 'selling' points of free software.
That said, the way the copyright industry has gone about their war on copyright infringers is very wrong. Using the courts to basically extort those that can't afford to defend themselves? Trying to pass legislation like a bull in a china shop - completely ignoring the distructive side effects their pet issue might cause. I don't think anyone on HN believes the way they have been trying to win the battle makes any sense.
This poll, while hardly conclusive, suggests at least a sympathy for the "IP is imaginary!" crowd.
There are 3/28 votes for abolishing copyright, 1/28 for the current system as-is and the bulk, 24/28, for retaining copyright with some reforms.
Supporting copyright reform is solidly opposed to the "IP is imaginary!" crowd. Supporting reform means valuing the concept of copyright and wanting to see it work better. The "IP is imaginary!" crowd would much rather see the current system collapse under its own weight as a path towards getting copyright abolished.
When people tell me about how the sky is falling because of software patents I remind them that in 1995 when the patent frenzy kicked off exactly zero federal judges had the kind of exposure to computers that would be required to ajudicate these issues. This became pretty obvious during the Microsoft Anti-trust trial as technical witnesses struggled to explain the ramifications of what 'bundling' did. And the problem extends throughout the system since these things get appealed etc.
So 15 years later, we start getting Federal judges who know a bit about computers (and Alsup knows more than many) and that leads to rulings that are a lot more reasonable.
Part of the 'pain' we feel is that the world change rate is faster than the institution adaption rate, however institutions that are designed to adapt do, and we are starting to see the benefit of that. In another 15 years these judges from today will be filling appellate and circuit court seats, even supreme court seats. And then it will be very difficult indeed to claim that using a laser pointer to amuse a cat is novel or patentable.