Originally Posted by camisadelgolf
I agree that not liking the music industry doesn't make it OK to steal. If I were around in the 1800s, I probably wouldn't have liked the fact that women couldn't vote. That doesn't mean it's OK to not let women vote either.
Anyway, the point I was making is that I own more CDs because I 'stole' the music first. That's why I listen to more bands--not simply because the internet made it easier. If I don't like the music, I delete it, and if I like it, I buy it. Napster pretty much changed my life in that way. What difference does it make if I download the music and then buy it instead of the other way around?
Music is art. Would you buy a painting without having seen it? I want to hear the music before I pay for it. What's so wrong in that? Shouldn't the seller want her/his customers to be satisfied? If not, then that's a very dishonest business imo.
The industry has changed, and it's time for adjustments to be made. Instead of record companies relying so heavily on record sales, maybe they should put more focus on tours and merchandise.
You have the choice to "view the painting" as you put it. Go to the library and check the CD out. Go on amazon and listen to a preview. Tune in to kexp or some other internet radio outlet. Go to the artist's website or myspace page. Painting viewed.
If, on the other hand, you want to drive a car around for three months to see whether it suits your needs, that's a different story. You can test drive it at the lot, but you can't keep it until you've decided whether it's really for you.
Sorry, but your argument is completely and utterly hollow. You download music because you want to enjoy the benefits of ownership on your own selfish terms. You want it when you want it, for how long you want it and for how much you want it. Don't give us some nonsense about how it's art and somehow operates under different rules.