I disagree that information can properly be property, I agree it needs protecting but the onus for protecting it is on those who release it hence DRM that is a far more capitalist approach than imposing laws.
But DRM is very unpopular, and indeed frequently used as an excuse for illegal downloading by those who think they have an entitlement for content. The market for DRM doesn't work because instead of not having the content if they disagree with the approach (which would result in market driven improvements in DRM) people instead go and just take the content anyway, which breaks the market dynamic due to showing that demand is high, but there is an alternative supply route, hence the desire to cut off the alternative supply route, again good capitalist thinking.
Also when you say the person who owns the connection that was abused, why is that at the consumer level, why not the ISP, the backbone carrier, who really "owns" that connection anyway.
because the router at the end of the line controls the connection traffic, and that is the responsibility of the user?
And to counter your last point I'm sure you're well aware that if you legitimately cannot know who was driving your car you will not get the fine/points, as would be the case with many file sharing incidents.
The situations where you legitimately do not know who was driving are few and far between, the vast majority of people do know who was driving the car at a particular point, and this is shown by the law. You have to be able to prove you cannot identify the driver by any means for the exemption to apply, and it is quite a hard thing to prove. It also wouldn't apply to the vast majority of file sharing incidents, just as it does not apply to the vast majority of speeding incidents. (source)
Last edited: