Yep, copyright is suppose to get more artists to create new works. It does this by getting their previous works out into the public domain so they can't rest on their laurels and use them as unlimited money for their entire life.
"What would I possibly want or need to "share" that would be too large to "share" by any other means?"
As I said below, song files on collaborations. Being a musically-inclined kinda guy, I know a thing or two, so lets break it down:
My friend and I want to create a song together. He lives in another part of the country, so sharing vis USB is unfeasible. It's a pretty epic track, over 30 mins in length, divided into 3 movements. Now even I know a track 30 mins in length is hard to work with, so let's work with 10 minute lengths. For each of the movements, there's a kick drum, snare, cymabls/crashes/rides, pads, guitars, the bassline and a spare track for fills or what have you. That's 7 tracks minimum. They have to the best quality, naturally so we use .wavs. So let's see.. 1 .wav track at 10 mins, that's about 95 MB. 7 tracks in total is 665 MB.. 3 movements adds up to nearly 2 gigs. Zipping it up would bring it down, of course, but only to about 1.5 gigs.
And that's just one example of sending large files with no copyrighted works present. Would you like another?
"While the judge apparently dismissed this concern because of Rapidshare's name ("The service is called RapidShare and not RapidStore... and that says it all.") that's really troubling. Just because the company is called "RapidShare" it does not mean that's all the company can do. Lots of companies change over time, and it's a little crazy for a judge to hold them to exactly what their original name says."
Also, as mentioned above, sharing does not have to mean illegal file-sharing. Personal photos to family, song files in a collaboration with friends (not copyrighted works, original stuff), Creative Commons/public domain works..
Also, even if something has just one legit use, it makes no sense to ban it. You don't ban crowbars, knives, cars etc just because they CAN be used illegally. Sure, knives are good for cutting stuff like rope, branches, straps and shit (I work on a ferry and every deck crew member must carry such a knife for emergencies like getting caught in ropes while tying up) but to make them illegal because they can be used to hurt others? Can't see that happening.
Seconded. While I can't comment on the state of things in the capital, I can tell you that down here in Weymouth (the sailing avenue), pretty much everyone thinks it's utter bollocks. The town's nowhere near suitable for the extra traffic predicted and people aren't terribly excited about having the whole of the main town centre (including vital roads) shut down or restricted.
From what I read about the security detail down here, it's pretty bad too - some days have had a staff shortage of 60% and on the best days, they can only manage 85% of total. I haven't seen any security people around, but I'm told they're here. I suppose they'll be more obvious during the actual games, but I'm buggered if I'm going out then.. everywhere's going to be heaving. The only time I'll go out is to work and even then, my commute's blocked, so we've had had to do a complete shuffle round of routes and stuff.. Nightmare, I tell you.
Huh. While I can't speak for proper 'warehousing' goods (for example, the iTunes store or even the Wikileaks server farm), personally speaking, at home, buying and filling my 1TB ext HDD turns out to be a lot cheaper and easier than buying and filling a cupboard for physical copies of movies and CDs. I'm not too hot at estimating weights anyway, but I'm assured that it's a lot lighter as well.
Burden of proof does not work that way - it's on the person asserting a claim (i.e. that god exists) and "if this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"
I can't prove god doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove a negative (try it for yourself - prove that unicorns don't exist. Go ahead, I'll wait), but seeing as I've seen no objective evidence that god does exist, I therefore assume he doesn't.
And no, proof from the Bible, vicars or something like 'today is very nice and sunny, therefore God exists because he made it' will not be accepted. They are objective/can be attributed to other factors.
In fairness, they never say it will be changed for the better..
Voter: Hello, MP? I'd like the copyright law changed please
MP: Sure thing, taxpayer, one 'death penalty for possible infringement' coming up!
Voter: No, I meant changed so it's less draconion
MP: Oh right, sorry - life sentence for possible infringement is certainly a good idea!
Voter: You misunderstand - less draconian and more suitable for the digital age
MP: Ohh, I get it now! Yeah, sorry. I'll whip that through straight away!
Voter: What exactly did you 'whip through'?
MP: Well, I listened to your suggestion of making it less absurd than death penalty for possible infringement (which if you ask me, is perfectly reasonable, or so I'm reliably told by the copyright industries) and how you really wanted it changed, so the proposed law is a fine for a billion pounds a year for your lifetime (and 70 years thereafter) if the MPAA/RIAA can prove you visited a torrent site. See, you don't even have to go to jail, it's a much nicer law, isn't it?