Ok, let's just sum up your arguments here.
I am of the persuasion that filesharing should be considered under "fair use" rather than theft.
Argument 1: I personally think it should
be legal. Therefore, I'll act as though it is
legal, and take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
Did Matthew and Luke commit theft in basing their Gospels on that of Mark?
Argument 2: People writing books of a historical nature sometimes take information from earlier works. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
As a writer, I'd be more than happy if people made copies of my articles for redistributation, provided that they credit me for my work.
Argument 3: I would be happy if people circulated my work, though it's important that they include my name so that I could get the respect and compliments I deserve. Therefore, I can take any artwork that I want for myself without paying, as long as I don't tell anyone that I created it.
I don't see why musicians who believe in their music wouldn't feel the same way.
Argument 4: As I sit here in my college, fed and on the road to a college education, I cannot understand why anyone wouldn't live up to my ideals. It's all about the music, man! I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying, and anyone who disagrees are not musicians, but greedy sell outs.
is meant to be shared and enjoyed, not profited from.
Argument 5: I make art to be shared and enjoyed, not to be profited from. It naturally follows that everyone makes art to be shared and enjoyed, not to be profited from. It's simple logic. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
If Jay-Z is already a multimillionaire, I think he could afford to let me download "Hard Knock Life" off Limewire.
Argument 6: It's ok to take something from someone without their permission if they are rich. They shouldn't care, and if they do they should refer to the above arguments. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
I burn a copy of every good CD that I check out at the library, and I feel no shame in it.
Argument 7: I get free music from the library and feel no shame. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
Without the "illegal" copying of music, CD burners wouldn't commonly exist.
Argument 8: CD burners wouldn't be commonly available if not for copying illegal music. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
Retail stores shouldn't sell CD burners, considering that they know full well what they will be used for.
Argument 9: People shouldn't sell things which might be used illegally. Retail stores sell CD burners, therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
There are anonymous P2P programs that prevent the government from interfering with your filesharing:
Argument 10: There are illegal ways to exchange works of art. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
If I were a professional writer, my only desire for compensation would be to cover the necessities of life. Once my article is published, and I've been paid for writing it, I wouldn't mind if others choose to copy and redistribute it, provided that they give me credit.
Argument 11: I agree that a writer should be paid for their work, but it is my view that this should only be 1) pay to cover the necessities of life and 2) pay for the original publication of the work. People who do not get paid at the time of publication, and are expecting payment through royalties, or people who get an advance that is to recouped, are screwed. Since these are my opinions, they should be applicable to all. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying. (cf Argument 3)
Music artists should feel lucky about how wide of recognition they can receive from the general public if their music is made available on P2P networks.
Argument 12: People should be happy that people are stealing their artwork. Art doesn't count as property anyway. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
P2P is a much more honest way than MTV and radio in generating artists' popularity, because it reflects what the people really want, rather than what record executives want you to hear.
Argument 13: Nothing can stop democracy from trampling the rights of individuals. Not even the mighty record company executives. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
If the people really like what they hear, many will show their appreciation by actually purchasing your CDs and concert tickets in the future.
Argument 14: This argument is, of course, more about theory than practice. It's not like I actually buy the CD's. Rather, I steal the music off the internet, borrow from the library, copy the library CD, or if I really have to buy a used version. Nonetheless, I retain the right to defend myself by saying that people who really like the art will buy it. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
If it weren't for the entertainment industry's influence over the federal government, filesharing would be a non-issue.
Argument 15: When musicians and other artists say that they want you to buy their album rather than ripping them off, it is just evidence that the entertainment industry has brainwashed them. If only people would stop protecting their property, I could take all I want without so many hurdles to jump over. After all, I should be able to take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
The very idea that filesharing equals theft of intellectual property is foreign to Biblical morality.
Argument 16: Hezekiah clearly speaks about this matter. Anyone who didn't know that is biblically illiterate. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
If it weren't for unauthorized copying, the Bible as we have it today would not exist.
Argument 17: It worked before, in my opinion, therefore it should be permissable today regardless of how different the context. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
Acts 5 28 Did we not strictly command you not to teach any man in this name? And behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you intend to bring the blood of this man upon us.
29 Then Simon Peter with the rest of the apostles answered, saying to them, We must obey God rather than men.
Argument 18: Peter says that we must obey God rather than men. Men want me to obey their silly laws. God really wants me to have the new single that came out last week. I'm siding with God. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
1 Corinthians 6 12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not advisable; indeed all things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Argument 19: I realise that stealing is not advisable, but it's still lawful morally since Christians don't have to follow all the civil laws. I pick and choose which ones to abide by, and which ones to ignore. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
I own many CDs, most of which I have purchased used on Amazon. When such a transaction is made, no money is given to either the recording artist or the record label. If we are not allowed to download low quality MP3 files for free, how long will it be before we are no longer allowed to purchase used CDs?
Argument 20: As anyone who has taken a logic course can tell you, the slippery slope is an ironclad, fully logical and valid argument to make. I'm getting there music one way or the other. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
In high school, my band made an EP, which I'd be more than happy if people chose to copy and redistribute.
Argument 21: Mom and Dad fed me really well. If these greedy musicians want to make music, let them ask their own mom and dad's to support them. I'm not going to support such sell outs with the money my mom and dad gave to me for my own use. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
If pro-life advocates were to take this passage literally, they would not protest Roe. One must consider the historical context of this letter, in which Saint Peter intended to protect the early Christians from avoidable persecution.
Argument 22: I do what I think I should do, and don't do what I think I shouldn't do. I'm pro life, so a pro-life stance is self-evidently the correct position for all to take. Likewise with artwork, my position is self-evidently the right one. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.
The standard for secular law is the Law of God. That which is not condemned by Scripture should be allowed by the state.
Argument 23: Biblical morality is the source and limit of what is and is not moral. Therefore, having your 13 year old daughter marry the next door neighbor--a common practice in biblical times--is perfectly acceptable. it was never outlawed after all, and continued to be practiced by Christians into the modern era. There are many other moral things that Christians should work on implementing. One of them is the ability to take artwork you want. Therefore, I can take any artwork I want for myself without paying.