I think I have the [human] right to release [most of] my "copyright iffy" archive. This chain of thought came to me while imagining/preparing-for a court case that would [maybe/probably] arise out of my releasing it. Given: to hold information private can give power to a person who acertains that information Anyone who hacks my "copyright iffy" archive (and indeed I made it hackable because I myself want to be able to access it (it's impossible to have one without the other)) will then have power over me: can blackmail me etc etc or just see into my brain further than most others can. Since society is flooded with copyrighted works (advertisements mostly), it is illogical to expect a human who records their [entire] life to retroactively censor those copyright infringing recordings. Such a human being would either have to detach from society entirely or spend more hours than are available in a given day editting out copyright infringing materials. e.g. if I'm up for 16 hours (recording) and sleeping for 8 hours (also recording, because I try to speak in my sleep), what hours do I have left to go and censor those 24 hours (unless I sacrifice entire days of my life doing it, which means AT LEAST half of my lifetime will be spent censoring previous days (assuming the [waking] recordings are littered with copyright infringing material, and they would be). This might not apply retroactively but only going forward. I knew back then (though I didn't understand the gravity of it) that my talking while listening to music was probably copyright infringing, so those kinds of infringement are [probably] not justified. But going forward, not myself being the one to initiate the playback of such copyright infringing materials, I can... I _MUST_... be able to record and redistribute those works which, not because of my doing, are contaminated with copyright infringing works. Let's ignore the fact that I try to stay away from society and it's copyrighted BRAINWASH: whether I like it or not I am forced to enter and interact with society every once in a while. So since a government obviously can't push it's citizens away from it (society), and since it's illogical to expect/demand a human to censor their own 24/7/365 lifestream, it is therefore unconstitutional in the cases described above to charge a person with copyright infringment. If it is found to be constitutional (by stupid/corrupt lawyers/judges/politicians/etc), then the constitution itself is illogical and I will tear it up and write a new one.