> He has not convinced me that there's any reason he should have that right. OK, suppose your girlfriend agrees to have you take some rather private photos of

> He has not convinced me that there's any reason he should have that right. OK, suppose your girlfriend agrees to have you take some rather private photos of her under the condition that you will never make these available to someone else. (Or the other way 'round if you're a girl) One day you break up and you're sharing these photos. Does she has the right to stop you distributing them? According to your logic, she has not. After all, you're just sharing among friends. And it's not as if she's loosing income of something like that. Following the authors logic, your girlfriend has the right to stop you distributing them. For you made a promise before she agreed -- you basically entered a contract. His point is that he offered copies of his work under certain conditions (called copyright). In other words, he expected everybody who agreed to the contract not to copy and redistribute his work. He expects them to hold their promise, their site of the contract. Nobody's is forced or required to enter the contract and make this promise. You're free to make your own music and share it. Or used someone's music who doesn't expect you to make a similar promise. However, violating your promise (ie. changing the conditions of the contract) is clearly immoral. Or would you want to be the victim of somebody who changes the contract conditions after the deal was made? Or would you want to be lied to, or have your friends break their promises? If the answer is 'No', then copying stuff without a license is clearly immoral.