I don't think that letting someone drive your car is a good analogy at all. If someone took your car you would miss it. Look at it this way. Suppose I have a freebie that I downloaded in 2003, which is now vanished. Someone asks me for a copy and I give it to them (which I wouldn't actually do, but let's suppose I did). That person now has the item. But who, besides us two, knows? If the person claims that they also downloaded it in 2003, who can tell the difference? This is why there is an air of ridiculousness about it all. Put it another way: A makes a freebie and gives it away in 2003. In 2006 it's gone. We have two Poser users, B and C. The possible situations are: 1) B & C both download in 2003. Both have it. 2) B downloads in 2003. B has it, C goes without. 3) B downloads in 2003 and gives to C. Both have it. From the perspective of anyone other than B and C, outcomes 1 and 3 are identical. From the perspective of A, all outcomes are identical (since A has no contact with C). Outcome 3 may be illegal, but it is a victimless "crime", and also an invisible and intangible one. Also, if outcome 1 does not occur and we have only 2 or 3, who benefits from the outcome being 2 rather than 3? A doesn't benefit. C disbenefits from outcome 2. In outcome 3, C benefits and A doesn't disbenefit. So which is better overall, from the viewpoint of moral philosophy?