> If you don't want to share your data that doesn't make sharing bad. This has two interpretations. Either you're claiming that: 1) Just because person A does

> If you don't want to share your data that doesn't make sharing bad. This has two interpretations. Either you're claiming that: 1) Just because person A doesn't want to share their data doesn't mean that it's bad for person B to share their data. or 2) Person A doesn't want to share their data, but person A having their data shared unwittingly isn't bad. I agree with (1). I don't see how (2) can be true. If I don't want my data shared, then having it shared is bad. Moreover, this isn't even just about sharing data. It's also about sharing bandwidth and legal/ISP ramifications. > And what _is_ the legal perspective for this issue, anyway? Do you equate it with illegal activities in a house? So the owner is responsible for what's going on there? It's not the same thing. I don't equate it with anything. My initial post was very clear about potential ramifications. Perhaps you should re-read it. > If you could be 100% sure that the originator is the true owner maybe you could have a stand in your argument. But you can't be 100% sure that the network is uncrackable. You're still very clearly missing the point. I don't care who the "true" owner is. I don't care about the workings of the network. In this instance, I care about what my ISP will do to me and what the government will do to me. I was very clear about this in my initial post. Please revisit the context of this discussion. The top post in this thread asked, "What is wrong with sharing?" I answered with what I could see as the potential pitfalls of sharing. What argument are you trying to make exactly? That sharing has no pitfalls?