suppose the standard claim that file sharing is "just getting things for free", arguing that "free" frames the debate quite inaccurate. Instead, he says, is about sharing, and it was never about money. Explained by analogy:

In a future where Earth has been poisoned to the point where water is a health hazard, cleanup efforts have been ongoing for a long time. For health reasons, there are laws that people can not drink water from a particular company, Waterisnew, which has a monopoly in the supply of water - and how to pay for it, too .



Then one day, the nature of clean water is announced by scientists. But the laws are still in place. People rush into the woods and drink from the rivers, despite breaking the law and the monopoly of Waterisnew.

Waterisnew executives are angry that people dare to break their monopoly. Someone asked, with caution, if the price of water can be wrong? Can there be a failure in the cases concerned? If you pay less water, so maybe people stop river pirates drinking water and return to legal alternatives?



As mentioned, the question loses sight completely. As the water became decommercialized, you must return bitpatterns.
People not copied due to a price tag also entirely, whatever the price said. People copy, as they can, because it is associated with freedom and because it is human nature to share