“The LA Times has published an opinion article about the [1] legal semantics and analogies of file sharing. The article includes arguments from those who believe file sharing is theft and those who strongly disagree. As it points out, the common analogies to theft are often incomplete or inaccurate. The author states, “balancing the interests of content creators against the public’s … is a much more complicated task than erecting a legal barrier to five-fingered discounts.” He recognizes that it is not a trivial concept, and that the clamoring from both camps about definitions and moral boundaries will dictate how businesses and users function in the future.”

Some comments from others:

• I break into your house and nick your Transformers DVD, at worst I’d probably go down for 30 days, unless I’m haibitual. Small fine probably. The charge will be breaking and entering, theft etc… I download Transformers from you instead, we BOTH face tens of thousands of dollars in fines, and many years in jail.
• One of the very goods point TFA makes is that this argument from the industry associations is not helping them because it’s so clearly false. It really is a sophism, and by persisting with it they are effectively saying that either they think we are idiots or they are idiots. Either way the argument ultimately hurts their position.
• Any time you find weasel words and bad analogies going unchecked, follow the money trail. This isn’t about artist’s rights. If anyone gave a crap about that there’d be an uproar about unfair record contracts and middle men getting all the money.
• This article gives a surprisingly nuanced and fair overview of the issues at hand. We’ve been over these things a million times on Slashdot, of course. Still, it’s encouraging to see the greater public getting their heads around what really is a complex issue.

Source: [1] LA Times - The Semantics of File Sharing
Source: [2] Slashdot