I have heard the argument many times that illegal file sharing is "different" than stealing something tangible. The argument goes on to say that illegal file sharing does not really cost the owner anything because the downloader probably would not have gone out and bought the product otherwise. Both these points are utter nonsense.

This point of view can only exist if one believes that only tangible items have value. Again, this is preposterous.

If you don't believe that, help yourself to cable TV service illegally. You may enjoy it for a while, but if you get caught, try to tell the judge that your actions really didn't cost the cable company anything.

The sad, sad thing about this argument is that it often comes from musicians, who apparently believe that their talent has no value whatsoever.

If I go to an attorney and avail myself of his services, and then refuse to pay the bill he sends me, I am stealing. It is theft of services. I did not steal his computer, or a painting on his waiting room wall, but what I did is theft nonetheless. And to say that it is justified on the basis that it did not actually cost him any cash out of pocket is patently absurd.

RIAA is not getting anyone into trouble. This, they did themselves, knowingly, and with but one motve: greed--the wish to get something of value for free.

If these cases against grannies and children are so unfair, then judges will throw them out. If the cases have merit, RIAA will win them.

Don't steal--our mothers taught us that before we went to kindergarten. Mother didn't teach us that it's okay to steal sometimes, but not others. Mom was the bomb.