Aaron Swartz was invited by the New York Times to write an editorial explaining why he thinks that file-sharing is ethical, but before the piece ran, the Times edited it, because they "had decided not to tell kids to break the law." Aaron has published the whole piece on his blog:
Downloading may be illegal. But 60 million people used Napster and only 50 million voted for Bush or Gore. We live in a democracy. If the people want to share files then the law should be changed to let them.
And there's a fair way to change it. A Harvard professor found that a $60/yr. charge for broadband users would make up for all lost revenues. The government would give it to the affected artists and, in return, make downloading legal, sparking easier-to-use systems and more shared music. The artists get more money and you get more music. What's unethical about that?
