[kevkrom]

This is where you are mistaken. If I download a bazillionty songs, and never buy a single CD, the RIAA still benefits. Think of the Costco free-food samples. You try the frozen pizza, in fact you help yourself to 6 pieces, yet do not buy the product. Every weekend, you help yourself to more free samples, and every weekend, you don't buy. But, some day you are with a friend who is planning a party, and you say "Those frozen pizza's tasted pretty good". Your friend, based upon your good word then purchases 1 or more of those pizzas. The free samples result in your word-of-mouth advertizing, which is the highest goal that marketing strives for.

You're missing my point. Aside from the economics of the situation, I'm saying that it is morally wrong for people to download music they haven't paid for. As I've pointed out, I don't have much of a problem for people who use it for sampling stuff, but even that is morally tenuous because they are doing so without the permission of the copyright holder (who, IMO, needs to re-think that position in the first place.

Your analogy breaks down quickly because in the case you describe, Costco is providing the samples themselves, as a free sample or loss-leader. A more accurate example would be someone helping themselves (without permission) to free samples by opening boxes and taking a bite -- some of them will buy, but you could hardly justify their actions.

[Hodar]

Your analogy breaks down quickly because in the case you describe, Costco is providing the samples themselves, as a free sample or loss-leader.

This is true, I agree so far.

A more accurate example would be someone helping themselves (without permission) to free samples by opening boxes and taking a bite -- some of them will buy, but you could hardly justify their actions.

Nope, because now the product has been tampered with, and the quantity and quality of the goods is altered.

Consider radio. Does air play serve to promote the song? yes. Can I record a radio show? yes.

We both agree that the RIAA has made the wrong decision, in that file sharing actually promotes sales. I noticed that some key points brought out by Sound and Vision magazine are missing. For example, the number of new artists released in the past 5 years, is lower than the new releases of 30 years ago. So, we have a larger public, but far fewer choices. This too impacts sales in a negative manner, but this tidbit is missing from this article.

The RIAA exists for a single purpose; to make money. They do this by promoting artists and releasing albums. What ever creates sales, thereby increases profits. Given a choice between file sharing, or Janet Jackson's boob .... I think I prefer file sharing.

[Sloth]

A more accurate example would be someone helping themselves (without permission) to free samples by opening boxes and taking a bite -- some of them will buy, but you could hardly justify their actions.

Except, of course, that it isn't analogous AT ALL. In that case, the store loses product (what's eaten) and has to dicard more product as spoiled (what's left in the box).

With downloading, nobody loses anything, except control over what's done with the information. Downloading music w/o copyright holder's permission MAY be immoral, but if so, it's NOT because it's "stealing." Nothing is lost, therefore nothing is stolen.