This is a dangerous argument. Shall we make it illegal to switch radio stations when they stop playing music and start running commercials? After all, the adver

This is a dangerous argument. Shall we make it illegal to switch radio stations when they stop playing music and start running commercials? After all, the advertiser paid good money for those commercials to play. Shouldn't everyone be required to listen to them? When reading a magazine, do I need to start from the first page and spend a minimum number of seconds staring at the multiple full-page ads before flipping to an article I might actually be interested in? Do we need to make VHS tapes and DVRs illegal, if they allow the user to record only the parts of the program they're interested in, while skipping over the commercial breaks? The pumpkins argument is a strawman: with physical goods, theft and loss of value has occurred. The legal owner of the unpaid pumpkins (the store) is now unable to sell them to a paying customer. When I choose to watch one video, but not another, I have not somehow taken value away from anyone. The original copy of the data is still on the server, ready to be delivered to the next viewer. The littering argument is a strawman: when I choose to watch one video, but not another, I have not committed an act of vandalism. No person other than me can even be aware that this has transpired, unless I tell someone else about it. What I choose to focus my attention on affects me, and me alone. Littering affects others, making it a poor comparison.