> You are not harmed just because you don't have free access to something you want. Yes I am. Art is the language of our society. It being locked away is abso

> You are not harmed just because you don't have free access to something you want. Yes I am. Art is the language of our society. It being locked away is absolutely a harm. Art is our culture, and our heritage. To deny it to people is absolutely harmful. It may be a tolerable harm, and one that we think is necessary to endure. But it is a harm If I download a movie from the internet, the state can force me (with all the power of the state: courts, judgements, guns, etc) to pay $30,000. That is a harm. Copyright is a legislative restriction put on me by the Government. That is a harm. Now, it can be a harm that's worth it. We may collectively decide that it is worth the trade-off to threaten me with financial ruin for watching a movie, because if it doesn't happen movies wouldn't be made. So, we might all agree that it's a harm that we need to live with. But to pretend it's not a harm to deny free access to our culture and our art is just flat out wrong. If you think it's not harmful, then let me ask: why can't we just abolish copyright law entirely. If there is no harm to consumers, then I would argue that there is similarly no harm to creators.