Now there is no doubt that just about anyone has gone online and downloaded something for one reason or another. There is however, a doubt that most of this was done "legally." The legality issues of downloading files online are a hot and controversial topic nowadays. The fact is, even if congress or some other law-forming body were to sit down and find a way to catch everyone for his or her internet activities, the majority would not even be phased. This is why file sharing, downloading, uploading, and anything else that can be done with a digital file, should be left alone by the government.

Just last year, the UK proposed a bill to ban people from the internet for inappropriate conduct online, such as file sharing. The plan is to force the "offender's" ISP to take action against the user, and report them to authorities. How is this fair, especially when the user is paying to use that service? It is not the ISP's responsibility to babysit their customers' online activity. The fact of the matter is, by enforcing such an unreasonable law; you are affecting one's business negatively to aid another's positively. The internet has a natural state of equilibrium, where all users are neither controlled, nor in control.

Another way to look at this is in plain reality with no computers or internet at all. Imagine John goes to Eric's house and lets him borrow a CD. Eric is now in possession of media without having paid for it. This is clearly not a crime. Now twist the situation and say Eric stole the CD from John. John is no longer in possession of his property and was not asked for it. This is the crime of theft. Now John and Eric are both at home, and John wishes to send Eric a song online. He proceeds to send Eric the file. At the end of completion, John and Eric both have the file. Clearly there is no theft of the file, and no one has made a profit, exactly like the borrowing scenario. Now is there anyone who can explain where the crime is in that current action? The fact of the matter is no crime was committed by either John or Eric.

Now, there are going to be those that disagree with this analogy entirely, based on the fact that the file was made into an identical copy without the authorization of the company/creator, thus violating copyright laws and now the two are guilty of copyright infringement. Well lets look at this in extreme detail. If one was willing to take the law as literally as it is written, then no, they aren't guilty of anything. For instance, lets say I go to the store and want to buy a $100 item. The catch is that I am unknowingly in possession of a counterfeit 100 dollar bill. I pass the bill on and neither I nor the sales representative even think twice about the 100 dollar bill. The bill was an exact copy of an actual 100 dollar bill, and was passed as such because of it. Now lets say the exact same thing just took place, only my 100 dollar bill is a terrible copy. It is missing Ben Franklin's face, and it only has the 100 label in the upper left-hand corner. I pull it out of my wallet and stare at it, knowing that this is completely wrong. Let's pretend I'm stupid and try to pass it anyway. The sales representative looks at me like I'm completely foolish, and says procedurally "Sir, we can't accept that."

The point I'm trying to make with this analogy is that a copied file from the computer is not identical, nor original after it is transferred. There are small parts missing, and all the physical material to go along with it is missing. No cover, no disk, etc. Therefore this is just like our counterfeit $100. No one is guilty of anything as far as this file goes though because there is no such law against making an "incomplete" or "different" copy of a file... Also, when you rip a CD, depending on the software, it most likely comes off as a .wma file. If you are downloading files in .mp3, the file format has changed and it's no longer in it's original configuration, thus not being an exact copy of the original. It's just like if you were to prosecute Food Club for "copying" Ajax dish liquid.

The movie and music industry report losing millions of dollars every year to "illegal" downloading, yet TV show stars, movie stars, and music artists are living it up in huge mansions, with multiple cars and multiple estates. If there was truly an issue with lost revenues, more and more artists would be either protesting or quitting their professions. The music industry has been conning the public for decades. They force consumers to convert from one media platform, to another and expect them to follow right along. All of this change has worked in their favor because it takes far less money to create and distribute CDs than it does in any other form. This can be proven by walking into any electronics store and purchasing stacks of over 100 count CD-Rs DVD-Rs and RWs for practically under $20.00. The industry uses the same technology that any average consumer does to burn a CD or DVD, so where is all this "lost revenue?"

Many companies have invested quite a large portion of their profit into "anti-piracy" technologies. Some of which include digital encryption, one-use CD/DVDs, etc. Although I have no problem with a company trying to protect their assets, this is a waste of time, because it is the classic battle of Yin and Yang. Even one of Newton's three laws, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction", can be used to explain what is going to happen with each new "anti-piracy" method. There will be hackers, and coders who will reverse engineer and rebuild cracks that cancel out the best efforts to keep data from being shared. No one can truly blame these people for what they do. It is a simple matter of not being controlled by companies after purchasing their product. If you are 100% capable of getting something for free, why wouldn't you? Some might call this socialism/communism, when in fact it is the very essence of capitalism. The consumer is trying to get the absolute best deal possible, and if that means "free", then that's what they will go for, ultimately forcing the company to either bring the prices down, or offer more incentives to actually buy the product.

Another argument to file-sharing and downloading is the whole "stealing" issue. The idea that downloading is now considered stealing has brainwashed many unfortunate "sheeple." Going back into the physical world now, it is known that every computer has at least one hard drive. The way that hard drive works is by continuously manipulating static on a metal platter. A song or a movie, or a game do not exist physically unless on a CD or DVD. When a person downloads something, they are simply manipulating static on that platter to do something else and record a file or program. Stealing implies that someone is wiping someone else's hard drive and taking that digital information. This never occurs in a normal file-sharing situation. The data is shared from hard drive, to hard drive and no data is ever "stolen" in any instance of it. So how can companies and even the government come to the conclusion that people are now "stealing" if they copy and share a file that technically has no physical existence at all other than static on a plate? Being prosecuted for taking another person's Static is like being prosecuted for not tying your shoes, is it not?

With all of this being said, it should not be assumed that the public will just be an easy, push-over, conforming bunch of people. This battle is only going to get uglier and uglier. Fortunately the present generation is light-years ahead in knowledge of the cyber-world than their predecessors and will always find a way to defeat the "legality" issue that the media industry or government throw at them. Many of them have grown up on computers and have downloaded enough content to put them in jail for multiple life sentences with the present penalties that are in place today. Downloading, file sharing, and the like should all be ignored by the greedy media industries that are looking for that one extra penny and the government should keep its nose out of internet affairs, other than the truly malicious cyber-crimes that need to be dealt with.