The idea
Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.
That is simply not the case:
For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.
Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.
The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.
Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.
Why is it important?
The restrictions on digital media are from the wrong century. To charge for something so versatile, easily copied and easy to send is not feasible. Cinema tickets and concert tickets are more than sufficient for the entertainment industry to survive. Such draconian attitudes to filesharing are brought by greedy, lobbying corporations and are not in the interests of the people and of the digital revolution.