>  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'm not certain whether the inference was a download of a Christina Aguilera
album through legal or copious means, but I assumed the former. I firmly
believe that an artist of any medium should dictate the policy of the
distribution and price for his art (or their legal assigns, including record
companies if they sign these rights away in a deal...which is another
topic). I do NOT agree that someone has the right to pirate someone's work
with lame excuses like "music should be free, man" and "the price is
unreasonable". No one is forcing anyone to buy a record, a painting or a
book.

While I agree that the exposure to music via downloads does enhance the
ability to build a wider audience, only a fool would assume that every
downloader is going out and buying the hard copy if they like it. Many do,
many don't. But because there's no effective way to control it, everyone
makes their own rules as well as their own excuses. How successful an artist
is, how much money they have or how many records they sell should not affect
the legality of taking their product without permission...Metallica and
Owsley have the same rights to retention of their art. I'm just afraid that
an entire generation is growing up with the sense that "if you can find it
and copy it, it's OK" is an acceptable moral plank upon which they can
stand.

cheers
b