[RootbeaR]

"Our liberty is the freedom to make copies, not to steal them. And simply because you can set your PC to produce a billion copies of an MP3 file on your multi-terabyte hard drive that doesn’t mean you get to steal a copy of that MP3 file from your neighbour’s recording studio – on the confused pretext they’re immorally enclosing an infinite resource (or even the facile “It’s ok because they still have a copy”)."
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/28211

[Stoner]

Looks like a work of sophistry to rationalize the act of illegally distributing copies of intellectual works.

So yes, the public should be free to reproduce the works in its possession ad coelum or even ad infinitum, but that doesn’t extend in the other direction ad inferos such that the public should be free to take copies of private works, private intellectual property.

This doesn't look like an argument for backups
In practical terms, it's an anarchistic argument to distribute copies of held possessions with the expectation of a reciprocal action. There is an anticipation of an exchange of value that excludes the interests of the IP creator. That is where the issue of 'theft' enters Fitch's argument. Fitch merely tries to avoid being painted as an advocate of criminal behavior by denouncing the physical theft of a legally held object.

[janiels]

nowadays we can download almost anything through the net, videos, music and other kinds of stuffs that we wanted, this makes it easier or convenient for us, also we are saving a lot of money, but the real problem was our industry, if a lot of people still keeps on pirating things it will be hard for our industry to cope up.

[Stoner]

Debate is continued here:

http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ml#post6952520