That internet file sharing harms musicians is arguable, according to a recent academic analysis. If economic harm is taken out of the question, the notion of harm has to go to an abstract notion of intellectual property and copyright infringement. I say it’s an abstract notion, but perhaps I should say legal.

What I’d like to know is if there is any defense of the ethics of intellectual property and copyright ethics in relation to file sharing that doesn’t involve any legal arguments at all. “Illegal” doesn’t necessarily equal “unethical.” After all, look at civil disobedience. (As an aside, you can’t argue that file sharing is plagiarism—no one is claiming someone else’s work as their own. )

I’m no legal scholar, but even if we agreed that digital music files are intellectual property, there would still seem to be the question of what kind of property. Let’s say I buy ground cover from the local nursery and put it in my back yard. Next year I dig out a plug of the ground cover to give to my neighbor. I still have the original ground cover in my back yard in my possession, but over the year it has spread, and it is from this new growth that I cut the piece I give to my neighbor. Next year there will be more still, which I can give away again.

Can the nursery then sue me? Of course not. Why should it be different for digital property? Digital files are not inert. If “planted, watered, and fertalized,” they multiply. Why can they not then be given away? I’d be interested in hearing how this biological metaphor is innapropriate for digital property.