> I think it's fair enough that artists would want some kind of payment for their work. However...
>
> People constantly borrow books from libraries. The library only pays for one copy of the book, yet hundreds of people may read it, and pay nothing. Is this immoral?
>
> Many art exhibitions are free. Admittedly, you can only see the paintings while they're on show, but are free art exhibitions immoral?
>
> Of course they aren't.
>
> I know, I know, making multiple copies of music files without the creator's permission or knowledge isn't quite the same thing as borrowing a book from a library, but are the two really all *that* different?
>

Yes. Everyone who checked out that book from the library doesn't now own an almost-exact copy of that book. Likewise, everyone who viewed the art exhibits don't now own an almost-exact copy of the work.

The author of the book that was purchased by the library has been compensated by his/her publisher for that one copy of the book. The sculptor has been compensated by a patron for that one work.

> Just a thought.
>
> -Zo"even when I do buy books, I buy them second-hand"e

-Faux "" Pas