> I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The

> I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The question in that case is balancing the benefit to society against the benefits to the company which claims copyright or intellectual property. Copyright is a limited monopoly, granted by society, to provide incentive for the creation of content; breaking that contract is a social ill. I disagree society breaking that contract, in a bait and switch, can ever be a social good.