It's the precedent @technogeek. In the USA content that is broadcast can be "saved for later" and "used later" these are called "space shifting" and "time shifting" ... Napster was stopped because of their control over the process, which is why the P2P networks have become de-centralized. In other words, you cannot put a picture of your logo or rear-end on the internet without incurring the expectation that your content will end up moved, copied, and implicitly used. There are incredibly rare cases where folks with a lot of money will threaten legal action, but that doesn't mean they'd win, it just means that they'd drag people into court. Most folks at that point opt to pull down the image. It's how things work.

Australia does not have such a precedent. In fact, in their case it is still illegal to copy a movie to video tape (unless they've changed that recently). Of course they do it anyway.

I've heard people make this a matter of "ethics" or "morals" but the fact is it is a matter of law. It's like driving on the right side of the road. The law says do it, if you don't you'll get a ticket, do you want a ticket? No? Then don't do it. If nobody gave out tickets then people would be driving on the wrong side of the road. It's not morals, it's just laws.

Sony fought hard to get where they are today by creating a video copying device and spending the money to make the law allow for them. Now they are fighting hard (and spending money) to get the law to keep people from copying their music. They are hoping to get some cops to write tickets to people who do not pay them. It's not morals, it's laws, and for Sony it's just business.

I don't know how old you are, and perhaps you don't remember when it was "illegal" to record songs off the radio onto an audio cassette. We're at that point with digital content. Exacerbated by the fact that the internet is international and there isn't much uniformity in laws. Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and any other patent/copyright holders will leverage their money and energy into making the laws of a Country support their profits. Not morals, laws, not rightness, just profit. If they rely on the law for their profit, then they get what the law provides. If they rely on the honor system for profit, then they get that. Shux, I may have to just re-post the old article.