I think it's important to scope the word "against" here. When one is "against" copyright, one is usually against extortion-esque tactics and expensive punitive judgments from courts against individuals in a campaign of intimidation. That's not really at play here, even discounting "potential profit motivations." There's just no threat of a lawsuit, and so that's probably why they'll be reasonably quiet on this article.
If you're a comedian, there is a professional artistic courtesy that you do not steal another comedian's joke -- that if you do, then you are "taking credit" for something which you did not produce. It strikes me that this is the same sort of irritation. The corporations who get mad that you've been seeding the Bourne movies on BitTorrent don't pretend to any sort of artistic outrage, and if they did it would be absurd, because you're faceless and not claiming to any sort of artistic innovation. But we're quite clear, I think, on the fact that (a) they're executives, (b) the government gave them a monopoly on copying these films, and (c) they're upset because end-users didn't care about the monopoly and shared anyway.
Given all that, I'm not sure I find the discrepancy particularly ironic. Actually, I think I'd more or less expect it -- if only because developers have clear human faces, while the RIAA's lawyers and executives do not.
If you're a comedian, there is a professional artistic courtesy that you do not steal another comedian's joke -- that if you do, then you are "taking credit" for something which you did not produce. It strikes me that this is the same sort of irritation. The corporations who get mad that you've been seeding the Bourne movies on BitTorrent don't pretend to any sort of artistic outrage, and if they did it would be absurd, because you're faceless and not claiming to any sort of artistic innovation. But we're quite clear, I think, on the fact that (a) they're executives, (b) the government gave them a monopoly on copying these films, and (c) they're upset because end-users didn't care about the monopoly and shared anyway.
Given all that, I'm not sure I find the discrepancy particularly ironic. Actually, I think I'd more or less expect it -- if only because developers have clear human faces, while the RIAA's lawyers and executives do not.