matrix_jan - 6:49 pm on Feb 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Finally we are moving forward, thank you ergophobe.

Calling it something else doesn't make it something else- it is still stealing.

If John makes a copy of a song to give it to his wife does that mean she stole from the record label? So it IS different right?

Now my point is that the prices should be so affordable that your friend would feel uncomfortable asking you to land a DVD for the weekend. My point is that the internet should stay free and the business model should change. If a kid stole $0.99 worth of apple the sentence would be lot different then stealing a $0.99 song. But why? You can copy a song but you can't copy apples (at least in seconds). But if apple business [did I bring a wrong fruit as an example?:)] was on the same level as music business, apple lobbyists would work with politicians to push for more severe sentencing right? They would start checking every apple on the street and ask for a receipt, would that make you feel a free man? And how would you feel knowing that the farmer (Artists in song's case) had only two cents out of that one dollar?

Again, my point is that forcing is not working. They start monitoring, people will start encrypting, force is not the answer. Accessibility and innovation are!