Myspoonistoobig wrote: More harm is being done to society by the industries pushing this issue than the individuals infringing copyright
You will find that very hard to prove.
The act itself is not analogous to shoplifting or robbery. It's analogous to not watching or muting television commericals. 'stealing' a file represents only a loss of potential profits. Whereas a real, physical product costs real resources to put on the shelf, a copy of a file on a p2p network is transferred with the bandwidth of the users involved, and stored on the harddrive of the one receiving it.
Your argument is flawed. The fact that something is digital makes it easy to steal, but it does not make it moral or legal. And yes, I use both of those terms as they are not always used in the same way.
Stealing music is actually GOOD for small bands: When you're a worthless nobody, you want every single person you can POSSIBLY get, to hear your song.
Balony. You want everyone to pay for your music, so you can afford to make more. Let's make a distinction here. If the small band chooses to release their music, fine. If they - the owners of the content you seem to so cavalierly dismiss - do not choose to do so then you have no right to take that choice away from them. That - no matter how you spin it - is stealing. That band has the right to restrict the distribution of their music, and you do not have the right to make your own decision that supercedes theirs.
drathbun wrote:Pay for download via legal channels is fine.
File sharing of protected content is not.
Now log on a secret non-mod account and say what you really think : )
Why? I am not ashamed of my opinions.