People aren't arguing the same things here. One side argues that piracy is a misnomer; that there are no true claims to digital property and that sharing is al

People aren't arguing the same things here. One side argues that piracy is a misnomer; that there are no true claims to digital property and that sharing is allowed at no cost for everyone. They highlight the injustices of the entertainment industry and "big business" poisoning both artists and consumers. The other side argues that piracy is stealing with no room for moral relativism, and that people measurably suffer as a result of it. We need to condense these and actually argue against the same things. First, let's examine what qualifies as fair use for sharing. It is true that the internet allows people to share media and idea in an unprecedented way, and that we are allowed access to things as a basic right, no matter where in the world we are. Sharing and public access to material is virtually universal, this is something that is agreeable. Now let's examine property rights and intellectual ownership. Property is anything that can be owned, although one could introduce semantics and change the definition to anything which is of value, or a resource. In either case, patents, copyrights and trademarks are all viable forms of property in the same way land is property. That it is easier to steal a virtual form of property than it is to steal a house does not diminish the fact that media is a valuable resource which can be represented by a medium of exchange (e.g. money, currency). In other words, when you pirate something, you are stealing media which is property. Property can be leased, bought, gifted and sold. It can also be partitioned and divided into smaller units. This brings us to a feasible view of property that can preside over both land and virtual media - property is the archetype itself, and property represents the greatest whole unit - under this definition, an album is a whole unit which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Similarly, a movie could be worth a billion dollars. But they are sold in much smaller units which are mirror forms of the original, albeit in single form. And this represents property for the same reason that selling an acre of a much larger form represents property - you are still selling a portion of a greater whole. We have thus eliminated one of the biggest arguments against virtual media representing property, and being ineligible for protection from forms of stealing. So we can now come to a reasonable agreement that piracy represents taking a form of property without paying for it, be it leasing or purchasing. And thus, piracy is equivalent to stealing. The only remaining point is whether or not stealing is justified in light of the often unethical business practices the entertainment industry subjects its incumbents to, most notably the artists. This is a much greater discussion to have, but I am of the opinion that it is not fair to those who produce or create the media to steal it. You do not know how much money they will lose, and you also do not know how much you would really "stick it to the man" to steal. Is it worth depriving a farmer of his grain to send a message to the government? The answer must agree with your answer to whether or not it is fair and justified to steal from an artist to send a message to the industry supporting him. So, now I bring my point full circle. Is sharing a universal right? Yes. But you do not share your property at no cost. Are people given the right of access? Yes, but that access is limited to surveying and browsing property. You are not allowed to squat on a home, and neither are you allowed to steal media. But you are given basic access to both of these things and presented with a choice to buy them or turn them down. These are the two options implicit in access. The problem is that people believe there are other options implicit in the right to access, and they act accordingly. What further confuses the issue is ideological baggage associated with the "warez" culture. Adding a label to your identity is a handy antidote to guilt and ethical considerations, but it does not hold up to raw logical examination.