Semantics aside, the situation is very different between physical goods and duplicable goods. I don't know anything else but this very thing ought to be reflect

Semantics aside, the situation is very different between physical goods and duplicable goods. I don't know anything else but this very thing ought to be reflected in the interpretation of law somehow. For example, the scale of thievery/infringement goes roughly from: - Stealing physical media (= traditionally illegal, one is left without) - Copying to self or a friend (= should be legal: it's none of anyone else's business what I and my friends share among ourselves. And I have a limited number of friends anyway) - Copying to a "friend" or internet peer (= question mark; I think it should be legal but many don't) - Selling copies to a friend (= should be illegal as I would be pocketing actual money and the original author wouldn't) - Selling copies to a "friend" or internet peer (= definitely illegal, I'm making money out of others' work) Thus, the culprit gray area is copying to others without a fee. It's also the point where the most arguments (to both directions!) are about. I don't have the answer. I do, however, have one point: no law should be based on speculation. If you could clearly show that someone would have bought a copyrighted piece but got it for free instead, only then there might be some case for the original copyright holder to be entitled to some money, capped at most to the regular list price of the copyrighted work in particular. However, if you can't show that then I think it's pretty clear that nothing substantial has happened and, also, nobody could ever be convicted in that situation.