Originally Posted by nate
Bad analogy. We're talking about theft, not civil rights.
I think this is just justification for stealing.
I guess I wonder why anyone would buy anything they hadn't heard in the first place and be surprised if they didn't like it in the second.
*Listening to internet/terrestrial radio
*Going to the band's web/MySpace/Facebook/last.fm/iMeem/etc. site and listening to a preview
I've always had the uncanny ability to know if I'm going to like a song after hearing about thirty seconds of it. Sometimes, even less. When I hear a bit of a tune I like, I can Shazam it, find out what it is and buy it. If I don't like it, it's a buck...sometimes less. I can't imagine a scenario where I'd buy something I didn't know I liked. I mean, I've always let the song tell me to buy it by hearing it first. I've never bought a track I hadn't heard before.
This where the "new way" excels. The "album" is no longer the vehicle for sales.
They've done this for years.
Tthe "record companies" aren't the only ones hurt by you stealing their music. The indy artists, the producers, the songwriters, the sole proprietor, the self-publishing author, the one-man shareware author, etc are the ones who _need_ and are hurt the most by people who steal their intellectual property.
How am I hurting anyone in the industry? It results in me buying more CDs than I normally would have.
Regarding the civil rights thing, let's compare it to alcohol prohibition. Like voting for women, it was illegal at one time to buy alcohol, but does that make it wrong? Right now, it's illegal to download certain music, but I don't think it will always be that way. Ethically, I think it's more wrong to make a crappy record and sell it at a high price like a snake oil salesman than it is to download some CDs and buy the ones you like.