Sharing things is a noble act. So why is it condemned when it comes to software, movies and music.
Sharing is what we teach our children when they fight for a toy or recognition.
Sharing is good because I can find people how appreciate the same values than I do.

Most people who visit such sites to download movies say that they would still go to the movies. They only download it to for a preview. Therefore the losses claimed by the industry are an over exaggeration.
The article "The Internet Debacle" by Janis Ian offers an alternative viewpoint to the industries claims. Which doesn’t mean that she endorses filesharing.
CD sales are up by 12 % a year and growing what is that problem. Some people dont buy Cds becuase they are not worth the money they are asking for. Take 50 Cent album Curtis. I like to own albums it works out cheaper. However Im not paying £20 for 1 great song.

Sharing is neccessary for progress. Progress is neccessary to avoid a deadlock.

Filesharing is a modern version of word of mouth. An unknown band without a record contract or airtime on the radio can promote itself by uploading music.

The not-for-profit approach of file-sharing provides the diskspace and bandwidth to access material that doesn’t earn its shelf space in stores anymore.

Monopolies (software) introduce artificial scarcity through intellectual property rights to increase monetary benefits. File sharing can reduce the monopolists command of the market.

Local and regional music scenes are accessible through filesharing in places where the music is not available in retail stores or on air.
Where movies in their original language are not available filesharing can step up to the plate.

For underpriviledged citizens it is essential to have access to the same media than everybody else. Otherwise the tendency to be left behind is increasing.
Sharing media in general and sharing electronic media files in particular ensures that more people have access to it.
If you can’t afford to buy a CD you still have the same right to listen to it.

To distribute a file among 100 recipients it is more efficient to use a peer to peer protocol than a server to client protocol. While servers need to provide a 100Mbit/s pipe for download, peers only need to provide a fraction of that bandwidth because peers can download from each other.

Stealing media is like stealing a joke from someone who made it up. If I go to someone and say a joke that joke must have originated from somewhere. I am not going to search for the person it originated and ask permission to be tell it
With music people say pirates steal what is essentially their work. If I were to go back to my analogy of stealing a joke then sue the pants off me Ive told thousands of jokes to my friends which I have heard on the radio. Heard On Youtube Heard On Facebook.
Sometime when Ive told a joke I got from a person, it gets passed on so often and to so many people that I heard the joke I told.
Again radio TV imagine how much work goes into being able to brodcast the media to people just becuase some thinks of a quick 4 liner doesnt mean its worthless. If some one TV wanted to use the same joke theyd have to pay for it.

All these compnanies that produce software/music/movies make far too much money anyway when they sell thier products for the ridiculous prices they sell them for. The prices they are demanding are sky high. The industry has failed to find an effective solution to piracy, therefore they curse the protocol