Stretching the analogy to the point of breaking is actually a very useful bit of rhetoric when one side insists on using an analogy. That is, when the copyrigh

Stretching the analogy to the point of breaking is actually a very useful bit of rhetoric when one side insists on using an analogy. That is, when the copyright industry says "sharing these files is hurting us, we must make it illegal to make copies" (because that is what they lobby for, anti-DRM circumvention and the like), showing that making copies -is not what hurts your business model- is a worthwhile goal, in both courts of law and courts of public opinion. The initial analogy is not a valid argument; taking it to the breaking point and by doing so showing that the analogy is too simplistic to be accurate, is a valid response.