> > 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?
>
> To make it more relevant: many (dare I say most?) libraries nowadays also stock cassette tapes, CDs, videocassettes, and even DVD movies that can also be borrowed from the library for free.
>
> Checking out a CD from the library is not much different than downloading a music file from the internet to listen to it. The point is, you RETURN it when you're done with it. If you don't, the library makes you pay for the cost of the media. (They usually make you pay more than what it was worth, but that's a whole other thread.) Similarly, if you download a music file to see if you like it, you should DELETE it when you're done with it. But unlike the library, there is generally no accountability; no penalty if you don't.
>
> When one checks out media from the library, their accountability system only prevents members from stealing the original media. There is absolutely nothing to prevent borrowers from making personal copies of something they like before returning it. That's where the library system breaks down. The internet is just worse because there is no accountability at all.

Between you and Faux Pas, you have shown me enough to help me crystallize my own thoughts on the matter.

I see the difference between a library and Napster to be one of duplication. As FP said, with a library or an art gallery, you do not own a copy after seeing or borrowing an item. One thing which neither of you explicitly stated, though, is that borrowing from a library only allows one person at a time to make use of a book. This is acceptable; Only one copy of the book had been purchased, but if anyone else is eager to read the same book and not wait for the first person to finish, another copy must be purchased (either by the library or the individual). A similar situation applies with CDs-- There are no laws against allowing a friend to borrow and listen to a CD. However, only one of you at a time can possess it. Napster and other downloading utilities circumvent this restriction entirely.

The other thing I would like to point out is the issue of accepted practice. Painters know that when they paint a picture, the only way for it to be truly appreciated is for it to be on display somewhere. This is likely why original portraits sell for so much-- When your work is not easily duplicatable, supply and demand dictates that prices rise. Prints help to circumvent this, but prints, also, are sold with some money reaching the original artist.

With books, it is standard practice that they may be found in libraries. Again, authors know and accept this, partly because they know that it is a way for people to become familiar with their work, partly because they know that many people would rather own a book than deal with the hassles of a library every two weeks (or so).

With music, the standard industry practice is that people must purchase a copy for their own use. With the art gallery and the library, some money DOES reach the creators, no matter how many people make (temporary) use of the item. This should always be the case with music as well. Technically, one could argue that somebody must purchase the CD before the songs become available, but in the perfect world for those who download music, only ONE copy of any CD would ever be purchased and become freely available for ANY other to obtain. This is similar to the way a painting works; does this mean that the one CD should cost thousands or millions of dollars? No, it means that the system is flawed and cheats the artist, since the record companies do keep the CD at a relatively low price. (Don't get me started on the subject of inflated CD prices-- they may be high, but as I say, they are NOT being sold for thousands of dollars. Be thankful.)

As for sampling music to determine if you want it, well, radio stations and listening centres at music stores provide that opportunity. Sure, most radio stations may have only ten songs on their playlists, but there are still the listening centres. As well, many artists now post samples of their work on the web. I found samples for a CD I wanted to buy five years ago on the band's website-- there were something like three or four thirty second samples. I found it was enough to judge the album on.

Some artists choose to make their work freely available via electronic means, such as Smashing Pumpkins with their last four songs (I think). For those, I say go for it-- it's not stealing if they're giving it away.

The last thing I have not discussed is the concept of sampling music if for some reason your local music store does not have a listening centre and your local radio station does not play your music. Off hand, I can't think of any good reasons to deny people the chance to download music and have a quick listen to see if they like it. I imagine if that was all Napster was used for, there would likely not be much of a fuss right now. However, I still feel that there is something not quite right about it, but that's not enough to argue on. :-) I will say, though, that if you must do this, then I agree with Grishny-- listen to it once or twice, and then delete it and buy the album if you really like it.

I think I have said enough on this now. You're probably all bored. :-)

Don "For the record, I used to use Napster until I took a good hard look at my values and what I was doing and found the two to be wholly incompatible. I deleted all the songs, and I think I uninstalled Napster. (At the very least, I stopped using it). I hate being a hypocrite, so I stopped" Monkey