but he owns the cd. if he owned a cd, and he memorized the ones and zeroes, and he would go out in public reciting the zeroes that made up the song, and people listened and wrote them down and reconstructed the music, would you arrest him?
my example is exactly the same as putting the file on the internet, just slower. morally equivalent, if the file is not his to distribute. again, your fair use examples are morally bankrupt and take income from the artists. thievery.
why do you think "sharing" is fair use? if i loan you a book, you wont buy it! and that takes money from the writer, unquestionably! isnt the question about getting folks paid?
I tire of repeating myself. If you have nothing new, then move on. Look, fair use is spelled out in the law, its not a matter of what I believe. Loaning a book is fair use, the book is paid for. Duplicating a book is piracy and creates a book that hasn't been paid for. I will not explain this again. A child can understand it.
If by "sharing" you mean someone paid for a download, and then distributed it to others, then that is stealing. The only "legal copy" was the one originally paid for and downloaded. "Sharing" is the pop culture term used by people who want to justify their stealing of another's intellectual property.
