Was interested a few days back that the Supreme Court struck down Morpheus, a popular file-sharing program. I've been mystified since the days Napster first nipped at the industry's ankles over the response of conscionable Christians to file-sharing. Many did so with impugnity, often arguing from the viewpoint that since no rules explicitly forbade the practice, it was acceptable. Being an amateur artist myself, I struggled to understand the logic behind this argument.
In non-sanctioned transfers, one simply takes what is not theirs for their own possession. I've never seen any difference between file-sharing and stealing. I don't say this with venom or overstuffed indignancy. I'm speaking matter-of-factly: how is unsanctioned file-sharing not stealing? One takes a purchased product, transfers the content to one's computer, and effectively offers it to all free-of-charge, without any approval. Huh? Excuse me, sir--would you like an appetizer with your moral inconsistency?
I've recorded a rap cd. If I were actually a signed artist, hustling to make a living from that cd, I would be stunned if my friends took the product I scraped to produce and freely dispersed it to takers. And yet file-sharers do just this, albeit to people they don't know.
Now, if only I had a cd people actually wanted
to copy, I'd be doing well.