[Eracer]

I'm kinda trolling here, but I'll try to be constructive, so please bear with me...

I know the sentiment among artists is that illegal file sharing is bad. And I'm not advocating it. I don't really do it myself, except for the occasional CD copy for a friend.

What is the difference between my buying a book, reading it, then loaning it to a friend to read, and copying a CD for him or her to listen to. My friend didn't pay for the book, or the CD, and really, I'm "file-sharing" either way, right?

Is the difference that with the CD I give him, he can make a copy (or 1000 copies) and sell them, whereas with the book, it's much harder to generate an illegal revenue stream? What about digital books? Why should they be any different that "analog" ones?

It seems to me that artists should certainly be paid for the use of their intellectual property. On the other hand, I think that the vast majority of people who illegally download music are doing it for their own benefit, and not to intentionally deprive anyone of a future revenue stream. They are "reading a borrowed book", as it were. It is stealing? You bet it is. But do you feel like you should pay an author a royalty fee when you read that borrowed book?

Is there a big problem with mass-duplication and sale of illegally downloaded music? Or is everybody just worrying about Joe Skaterboy who downloaded some Metallica to his computer because he spent his CD money on weed?

Should we really try to stop all music sharing? Is it possible? Or should the powers that be come up with a new model for music distribution. One that puts revenue back in hands of the artist, and allows for some tolerance when it comes to the sharing of great music. And no, I don't have a solution. Serial Copy Management seems like way to go, but it, and anything we try to implement that involve Digital Rights Management, will be hacked. And the only people who will benefit from that are the people who are copying music in order to make money.

Thanks for tolerating this lengthy post.