Download fever

^ wrong. I recently read an interesting article on the subject and the bottom line was that most young people (who have grown up with the internet) just fail to understand even basic principles ... they think that EVERYTHING is free.

When you download something, you're using something without paying for it.

Imagine that EVERYBODY stopped buying albums and just downloads them. The record company AND the musicians don't get anything for their work.

NOT HURTING ANYBODY? You must be out of your mind. 

Poxx wrote: chopper wrote: goose wrote: BitchBrew wrote: If you can't afford to buy a CD, downloading is OK! WHY THE f**k NOT!? ...and if you can't afford a CD player, stealing is OK? Why the f**k not?  I can't afford a Ferrari so it must be okay to steal one then! I would suggest you talk to Nick Barrett of Pendragon about downloading and explain to him why you think it's okay to deprive him of his royalties. You are not stealing by downloading. You are copying information with your own materials. This is the same as when you are baking a chocolate cake from a recipe that isn't created by yourself. You apply the information and the result is an identical chocolate cake. Chocolate cakes taste good. Though, copyright laws works in mysterious ways, and by mysterious I mean, they don't make any sense, but they fuel the pockets of alot of lawyers and record companies.

I don't think your cake analogy works. The author of a recipe would probably be on a royalty per book sold (assuming the recipe came from a book). They would not be paid every time someone baked a cake from their recipe. The analogy would be if you borrowed the recipe book (e.g. from a library) and photocopied it before using it. You would then be depriving the author of a royalty that he or she would earn if you had bought a legit copy.

^ music is not a tangible commodity, so different rules apply. The problem is that listening to the music is comparable to eating a cake, or consuming any other "physical" product. If you didn't pay for it, you caused damage to the seller. You did something which he would normally charge you a certain amount of money which HE is free to choose. He created the music, it's his, he owns it. He can decide that listening to that music costs a certain amount of money.

Think about it - radio stations and even restaurants or bars have to pay royalties for the music they play. You want to listen - you pay. It's very simple. If you don't pay, you cause financial damage to the creator of the music. Maybe you don't call it "stealing" ... that's fine with me. I 'll just call it "illegal copying" then, which is equal to "stealing" in the eyes of the law.