I thought that might be your answer. So, let's change the scenario a bit. Instead of taking someone else's digital image, how about we use their logo and branding for our own purposes. How long do you think someone like Microsoft would allow you to set up a website, use their own logos and branding to sell your own product or service? After all, they still have possession of their copyrighted and trademarked materials. If you are so certain that copyright law does not apply to digital images maybe you should visit Getty Images and use a few of their images. They are well-known for their aggressive tactics against copyright infringement. As far as I know, the law is on their side. A big part of the problem is in fact that copyright laws have not kept up with the Internet. Shame on the governments of the world. The DMCA was a step in the right direction but it's far from a good solution. A big part of the issue stems from money. You have the little blogger somewhere who takes a photo and posts it on their blog. They have no advertising on the site and are not selling anything. In other words they are in no way financially profiting from the image. But, in most cases, websites and blogs are designed to make money. So that blogger or webmaster who uses someone else's image is in fact profiting from someone else's work which is exactly what copyright laws were supposed to protect against in the first place. As to the song downloads. The real criminal is not the person downloading the songs but the person who is posting them online and making them available. But, following your logic, the person who buys illegal drugs on the street corner is also not guilty of committing a crime.