Oh I don't take things personally very quickly, no worries.

-
You spent a lot of time here arguing about the legality of downloading. I wholly agree with you that it is illegal. But in my previous post I tried to convince you to step
out of that framework of the rules on paper, and into the reality of the current situation and reason about how we could adapt laws so this whole situation
comes out better for society as a whole. The point is I think the laws need to change, there is no argument whether it is illegal or not. What I defend is the MORAL
opinion that I can download whatever I want.

To me it is a moral argument in a sense, where I believe that information should be allowed to be freely distributed whatever the current rules are,
with the sole restriction that you cannot use other people's stuff for profit.

Mind you that in principle it is illegal to show your DVD at a freind's house, or to lend them the dvd, lend them you mp3 player etc. In this topic there has
always been a disconnect between the letter of the rule and what people actually are allowed to do. Basically, the music industry, or movie industry etc. will extort as much money as they possibly can without any concern for reasonableness.

Do you remember casettes? Everyone used to record songs from the radio and exchange their own mix tapes with friends. The industry couldn't really control that
at all, so they didn't sue anyone. With the digital 'casettes' though on the internet there is traceability. From the possibility flows the act of suing people.
So the freedom internet offered us has actually DIMINISHED the freedom we had pre-cd's. The scale of information exchange
(many many more 'casettes' are exchanged) however sure is hurting a dinosaur industry that is holding everyone back.
Q: Do you not think that if they could, the music industry would charge you for singing a song in the shower? I bet you they would, only as I said earlier, for now they cannot realistically do it. But still, technically you are probably also breaking the law (I don't know US law that well though), but off course judges don't enforce it that way and companies do not persue that.

----
I also want to comment on your car analogy. ANY analogy with stealing of actual objects is totally false imo and diverts the discussion in a disingenuous way.
You cannot compare an actual object that takes up space and has mass, with information that can be copied (copying is in NO way equivalent to stealing)
for the cost of a few watts of electricity, without taking any posession at all from the creator/owner.

It is -for now- illegal copying, but it is not stealing.

----
This all ties in to many other aspects of the way we deal with rights on information. The scariest of abberations here imo is the patenting of genetic code.
I find your discourse scary and dangerous, because I believe freedom of information weighs much more than some companies that resist their factual redundancy,
as it is normal for any organisation to do.

If you listen to the same people you listen to about music, on the topic of the internet, you risk finding that this free internet we here all have enjoyed
for over a decade, was just a short lived phase, replaced with a sort of 24-hour shopping channel.

PS: Libraries? There you have one huge and important freedom, for equality, for education, that you will lose in no time if people don't wake up and demand information to be free for exchange. Look at Google books; an online free library. They have been sued from all sides, while in principle they are just offering what we have had for hundreds of years: free books.