Not true. You can't just take someone's corn and magically turn it into a lifetime supply. This is intellectual THEFT, pure and simple, just like software piracy, and its practitioners are thieves, stealing music they would otherwise have to buy. And I'm not talking about people who only download unprotected music, or even the ones who use MP3s to decide what to buy.
People come up with all kinds of arguments to justify stealing music because it soothes their consciences. If it weren't for these personal moral issues, I would be very surprised to see conservatives on a conservative forum arguing against the right to private property--even in the name of capitalism, for crying out loud.
Consider the following two groups of people:
I think it would be fair to say that among the first group of people above, the availability of downloadable music will increase the amount of music they purchase; among the latter group, it will decrease it.
Although there are certainly some exceptions, the general impression I get is that the people who buy music despite (or because of) the availability of downloads are apt to be the ones who would be inclined to spend more money on music than those who, because of downloads, don't buy music.
I have sometimes heard it lamented that much of the use of Stephen Collins Foster didn't net him a dime. One of the great American songwriters, but he never got rich. On the other hand, I would posit that if people had to pay royalties any time they sang his music, it would never have gotten anyhwere near the popularity it achieved. And the fact that he never got rich from his music nor had any realistic expectation of doing so hardly deterred SCF from writing it.
First of all, many of us here do actually believe in buying music which is worth owning. Whether or not it's legal to download a few tracks from an album before deciding "hey this is cool" and buying it or "hey this is junk" and deleting it, I don't think any reasonable moral objection can be made to that particular practice. And of course neither moral nor legal objections can be made to the practice of downloading music from legal advertiser-supported sites.
As for the condemnation or lack thereof of those who download music with the intention of using it on an ongoing basis without ever paying for it, I think a large part of that goes back to the concept that predates or modern legal system--that public support comes with respect. If a man who routinely bullied everyone in town got robbed, he'd find far less sympathy and support than a man who respected and was respected by the townspeople.
Finally, many here are opposed to the record companies because we refuse to do anything to assist in their efforts to rob or restrict the freedom of the American people. Garbage like the DMCA gives the record companies far more ability to rape the American people than its absense gives file-sharers. And the royalty on blank music CD's, which hits those who use audio recording equipment to record their own music while ignoring those who use computers to burn downloaded CD's--that's just plain robbery.
You can't do the same with a song either. After a few hundred or so listens you want something new.
This is intellectual THEFT, pure and simple, just like software piracy, and its practitioners are thieves,
That's according to the law. If you change the law they are no longer thieves. And I'm not saying there shouldn't be protections against someone else taking credit for another's work or marketing it without compensation.
But traditionally, if you buy something it belongs to you which means it is your's to give away.