At 03:42 PM 02/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:
><snip> That being said, there is NO statistical evidence that downloading 
>music
>decreases sales of CDs, let alone other revenue streams.  Sure, if I
>download the entire new Christina Aguilera CD (Heaven forfend!), I don't
>have to buy it.  But maybe I will love it so much, I will get tickets to
>bring all of my friends to see her live, and buy belly shirts and
>programs, and then all my friends might buy her back catalog.<snip>

I am only commenting on this one part of your cogent post and my comments 
are not directed at you but at the topic in general.  I have no opinion on 
Mr. Owsley, Britney, the future of music, or alternative distribution 
methods in this post

Is statistical evidence necessary for the owner of property to mitigate or 
protect against theft?  One could argue that people who shoplift from 
jewelry stores were not likely to ever buy the bracelet, and heck, the 
insurance company covers the loss anyway (I understand the distinction 
between stealing physical vs. intellectual property but am unsure why a 
distinction should be made in either case).  But it is still thievery to 
take something that does not belong to you without paying for it, a thing 
that is a disposable commercial product that relies on payment for 
compensation for the effort of creation. It is not as if it were stealing a 
loaf of bread to feed a starving child where you could argue a moral necessity.

Should the black market consumer determine the terms under which the 
creator may control his own product?  I think not.  But I am willing to 
hear why I am wrong.  But I don't care to discuss the practical 
implications of downloading vs. pay per copy, the economics bore 
me.  Instead, I am interested in the moral argument that justifies taking a 
copy of the work of an artist/craftsmen that was not purchased but was 
clearly intended for purchase because it wouldn't have been purchased in 
the first place.  I have a hard time calling this anything other than 
theft.  And it matters not what the "industry" has or has not done, 
morality is not really very dependant on the attitude of either the victim 
or the offender.

I used to make my living (meager) from my music and performances.  I gave 
it up in 1983 since it could not feed me or let me start a 
family.  Probably because my music was really not interesting enough to a 
large number of people to sustain me.  Certainly no major label conspired 
to thwart my efforts.  A few of them offered me restrictive contracts, I 
choose to start my own indie label (Tekno Tunes) that did fairly well.  I 
have no sympathy for the corporate powers that be.

Since then, I have released *everything* I have that is not under 
protection onto the web.  As much of my music as I can release for free is 
out there.  I've had a few nice reviews and personal email feedback from 
listeners that it pleases me (BTW - my old music is *not* power pop).  I 
don't wish to ever make a penny from music, I've found greener pastures 
that fund my life and allow me the time to compose the music I wish to 
hear.  but I am now composing new music, collaborating with talented young 
people, and I love having the freedom to distribute it without charge or 
compensation.

But that is my choice.  To use a computer sleight of hand to steal the work 
product of someone else who is selling product is to demean their music and 
violates any sense of fair play.  And it means taking something that does 
not belong to you and stealing it for your own personal gain.  And it is 
*not* the choice of the thief to decide what it is fair to steal and what 
should be sacrosanct.

My $.02 and not worth any more than that.

NP - (no joke) They Call It Rock - Nick Lowe.  (actually, i took some time 
to marginally clean up a few typos, so Little Hitler is now playing)