Reply #42: The library comparison is very apt

[Threedifferentones]

Libraries pay for a few copies of a book, and then unlimited numbers of people get to use them. Isn't that stealing?

Mainer, I do not know how you were convinced of the myth that file sharing is taking bread off of artists' tables. Fact is, most "unknown" song writers I am acquainted with love the potential for free exposure on the internet. They also all take it for granted that they could become pretty successful, that is, develop a solid fan base in one or more cities/regions, and never get a whiff of a profitable record contract. Do you work for a record company or something?

The vast majority of unknown artists are happy to have their music spread for free. Even if they can get record contracts, they typically make nothing off the sales. This is why the only "artists" who bitch about file sharing are rich and famous already. Mostly, though, it is the recording industry that bitches, because they got spoiled by having total control over our access to non-live music. Selling a disc and some plastic worth less than $.50 for $19.99, and then often paying the artists who made the music little or nothing, was only a legitimate business model when we had no options. These fools failed to adapt, and so what revenue remains in the recording industry will go to companies that adapted like Apple and Napster.