> Pricing something beyond its marginal cost of delivery is a restriction on your freedom?

No. Choosing to price something you own beyond its marginal cost of delivery is not a restriction on freedom.

What is a restriction on freedom is not allowing others to take something they have (a collection of words / pattern of bits / a SD card / a hard disk) and choose to give that away to others. The fact that in an internet-connected world allowing that will result in most people being able to acquire most files for no more than their marginal cost of delivery is a result of freedom, not a restriction on it.

It seems extremely unlikely that you can keep the price on any widely distributed collection of bits much above 0 for an appreciable length of time without governments intervening to remove that freedom of sharing and copying from people.

Copying a file doesn't hurt anyone.

Will you kindly share with us a copy of all your computers, devices and digital records? Copying those files doesn't hurt anyone.

No, I will not. Why would I?

Freedom to copy != obligation to copy.

Your arguments are erroneous, at best.

I'm trying to establish what your argument is.

So if I get hold of your files somehow I have the freedom to copy, right?

If I had not shared the files with you, and they cannot be found in a public database, then the only way you could have obtained my files is through illegal means, such as breaking into my house or planting malware on my computer. In that case, the issue of sharing those files is beyond the point, since you already invaded my privacy and broke the law.

If I had shared a file with you, however, then you should feel free to share it with others as much as you'd like.