Thanks for the comment.
You raise a point which is a bone of contention! And please believe I am not trying to be picky etc.
You said: "The issue is that a considerable amount of P2P traffic is theft of copyright..." This is where a big part of the problem lies! It is true that groups such as RIAA, MPAA, BSA etc claim that copying files where the Copyrights are owned by a company is "illegal theft of property" (or something similar). The fact is that LEGALLY, it is not!
There have been a few articles devoted to this topic, some by legal experts. (Google is your friend)... LOL
Here is one example:
http://blog.badtux.net/2007/10/is-downl ... aling.html
Until the greedy sods that are members of groups like MPAA, RIAA etc stop their scare tactics and terrorizing consumers (and make no mistake, they are using terrorism as defined by the Geneva Convention and most countries moral codes) and start a rational, sane discussion of the *problem* in toto, there will never be a workable solution! People don't even use the right language! There is no such thing in law as *Copyright Theft*! It doesn't exist! How can anyone discuss it when the language used is fundamentally wrong?Is downloading a song "stealing"?
The answer, of course, is "no". The copyright owner still owns every piece of property he ever had. Every bit of data he ever had on his hard drive is still there. Every bit of money he had in his wallet is still there. Stealing is, fundamentally, the removal of property from someone's possession. In the case of the songwriter, he still owns the copyright to his song. He still has all his property, thus nothing was stolen.
Of course, these groups don't want an honest, rational discussion. They want to use this to raise prices and therefore, profits. Which is a very shortsighted view! They simply want total control! It has nothing to do with legal vs. illegal, or even something as fundamental as right and wrong.
I do understand that you are simply using the language that the anti-social groups like RIAA, MPAA, BSA etc have defined to be used. Just because they want people to use such language, doesn't mean it is a proper legal interpretation or even valid English. I think of it as a Corporate slang if anything.
Until THAT fundamental issue is sorted, the *problem* will never get better.