----- Original Message ----- From: "*Bill Holmes*" To: "ira rosen" ; Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:49 AM Subject: Re: Morality and mp3s > > I submit that if it has been acceptable to record Casey Kasem's Top 40, > then > > recording "trials" off of a streaming source on the Internet would be > > equally acceptable (or unacceptable), as rule now dictates their equation > > with radio and requires royalty payments (obscenely high and unfair). > > I think what turned the tide on taping was the speed and expense factors. > Buying tapes even at 1.99 per, copying and mailing to friends took time > (copying at what - 2x?) and money (ask any early SOTT participant). The fact > that thousands of people can instantaneously copy and distribute music at > (arguably) equal quality and at almost no cost (email vs snail mail) means > even a lazy person can accumulate a music library without spending money. Speed/expense does not change the relative morality of the situation - either both are moral, or both are not. > > *Unauthorized* mp3 downloading is immoral - help me find a way around it. > > I can't - my stance has always been that taking an artists' work without > their (or their legal representative's) permission is theft. Agreed - my point with the request was to see if anyone was up to the challenge thrown down. But I choke on the logic of used CD purchases. :) It's my understanding that the purchase of a CD entitles one to the ownership of that unit - the sale of that unit to someone else would be permitted. If this is not the case, then the fee for purchase is merely a rental fee - I don't believe that that's the structure. With movies, you can rent or buy - with music, no rental entities exist, but borrowing is perfectly accptable - copying for the purposes of not purchasing a copy is immoral for either movies or music. > > cheers > b, still catching up > >