I think part of what gets confused in these discussions is that there are (at least) two reasons we might restrict a behavior: 1) because the act itself causes harm; 2) because allowing the act to occur will lead to an undesirable outcome.
Historically, copyright law is type (2) -- specifically, it's a response to the threat that creators will not create without financial incentive. The copying isn't itself undesirable; we're more interested in encouraging a specific outcome.
Where most of the purportedly analogous arguments go wrong is that they describe actions that are type (1).
As an example, lots of people here are suggesting that a better analogy to file sharing is the act of sneaking into a movie theater. But this seems pretty clearly to be a case of an act that is restricted due to (1); that is, it's illegal because it's trespassing, which is undesirable in its own right.
Comments
I think part of what gets confused in these discussions is that there are (at least) two reasons we might restrict a behavior: 1) because the act itself causes harm; 2) because allowing the act to occur will lead to an undesirable outcome.
Historically, copyright law is type (2) -- specifically, it's a response to the threat that creators will not create without financial incentive. The copying isn't itself undesirable; we're more interested in encouraging a specific outcome.
Where most of the purportedly analogous arguments go wrong is that they describe actions that are type (1).
As an example, lots of people here are suggesting that a better analogy to file sharing is the act of sneaking into a movie theater. But this seems pretty clearly to be a case of an act that is restricted due to (1); that is, it's illegal because it's trespassing, which is undesirable in its own right.