That's the whole thing about this debate - people see it in binary opposites - black or white - right or wrong - "crossing the line". We cannot pretend to know what goes on in people's minds when they download or buy music, and projecting or in-grouping / out-grouping or scapegoating is NOT a logical response to the millions of different circumstances behind individuals' actions. I thought psychological determinism was discredited a long time ago! I just can't agree that under any circumstance, an "illegal" download is always wrong.

Ultimately bud, we're going to have to agree to disagree, but I do totally agree with your point a few pages back that a person's view on this issue is likely to by generationally related.

Which might explain the draconian nature of the proposed law in the UK.

"First they came for the file-sharers..."

At the end of the day, I like the no.data.blogspot slogan:

"For the major labels, it's over. It's fucking over. You're going to burn to the fucking ground, and we're all going to dance around the fire."

Dodge, those krautrock albums that folk post on here about aren't that difficult to get hold of on CD these days. In fact, many of them are probably more widely distributed now than they were in the early 70s. There's a glut of re-issue labels such as Spalax, Cleopatra and Repertoire that specifically cater - legally - for that market, as specialised as it may be.

Aside from your arguments about file-sharing, I think your description of "Soundtracks of our Lives" as a vanity list is a little harsh. I know from the number of real-life encounters I've had with HHers that there are many people on this forum who virtually live, eat and shit music - I'm one of them, to the extent that it often leaves me with little time for anything else.

For the record, everything I post about on "Soundtracks of our lives" is owned. Admittedly, I do get to hear a lot of stuff for free, as I work in the NSA and listening to new releases is part of my job, but frankly about 70% are so mediocre they go in one ear and out the other. The ones I like, I will always buy, unless they're out of print, in which case that's not an option.

The only thing I object to is being expected to pay for the same album two or thrree times over. "The Beatles In Mono" box set was an example of this - if EMI are going to charge loyal Beatles fans - many of whom have probably paid for those albums several times - £200 for a box set of CDs that could easily have been issued separately, or as two-fers with the stereo mixes, they have only themselves to blame if people opt to download rather than buy. Same with "The Velvet Underground & Nico" - having already paid for, and worn out, that album three times (on cassette, vinyl and CD). I reckon I'm entitled to download the mono mix for free rather than fork out for a fourth edition/

When it comes to less established artists who struggle to eke out a living from their music, though, I'm against file-sharing myself - but with CDs having been kept at an artificially high price for so long, I do feel that the industry is partly to blame.

D1, I take it this is the rebuttal you promised.

I'm a little disappointed that generally this comes across as a prejudice against digital music, rather than specifically illegal downloads. I own an ipod, it has about 8000 songs on it and 7800 of those will have been ripped from original CDs that I own. The remaining songs are almost all iTunes downloads, with maybe a dozen that are otherwise not on CD or a current official release (but which I've probably bought on vinyl anyway).

I post on SOOL most weeks, and 99% of what I mention is owned by me. The other 1% will be the live stuff I have mentioned earlier in the thread - if someone wants to give this stuff a proper shiny CD release, I'll buy that too. I probably buy ten CD albums, a few CD singles, some vinyl and a small amount (probably less that a tenner) on iTunes every month. I reckon I don't need to feel bad about what you percieve as my lack of support for the music industry.

Last night, you mentioned that the issue was with illegally downloading "copyrighted material". I don't know the ins and outs of copyright law, and I'm sure it's different in the UK to the US anyway. However, let's say New Order played a gig in 1981. At that time they were signed to Factory records, and due to Factory's contract policy, the band owned all of their own music. The gig was recorded by an audience member on a crappy tape machine. The record company was never going to release something like this. Fast forward nearly 30 years. Factory (who never owend the music anyway) have been bust for 15 years or so. New Order's catalogue is administered (badly) by Warners under licence from New order themselves. They have no interest in releasing crappy audience recordings from 30 years ago, they can't even do a proper job of releasing the studio recordings. Someone gets hold of the audience tape, digitises it and posts it online. Fans get to download it and hear music they wouldn't hear otherwise. The blogger doesn't make any money from this, but probably takes pleasure in the fact that other people get to hear this stuff.

I think the point that someone (IanB?) made about "entitlement" is fair. It is true that the bootlegger who made the original recording, the blogger who is posting it and the fans who are downloading may appear to believe that they are "entitled" to do so, and I do agree that this is not right. However, my question is, is this activity depriving the artist of income they would otherwise be getting? Only if the recording was going to be commercially released. It could be argued that there is a "loss" of publishing for the songs on the recording. However, one of the copyright holders (Peter Hook) has gone on record to say he has no problem with bootlegs of this nature. Is it depriving the record company? No, because they never owned the rights to this recording in the first place.

When you were younger, did you ever buy a bootleg LP? Did any of your friends ever give you a cassette of something they thought you would like but probably would never buy of your own bat? And did those LPs and tapes make you even more into music?

I've probably said more than enough on this subject now, so I'll keep on listening to music and in the meantime I'll look forward to the knock on the door in the night.

Replies not meant to be personally directed at you or anyone else, or even meant to fuel the argument, just to give a different perspective on some points.

I can see that there are negative aspects from "downloading", but think the idea that "consumers are ripping off artists" is mostly bollocks. In my view, it's those middle men (i.e. record companies) that have been ripping off BOTH artists and audiences for years, and it's getting harder for them to make a buck doing it these days. Boo-frickin'-hoo, let's get rid of the middlemen and let artists & audiences find each other directly -- the Internet is an invaluable tool not a tragedy. (See for example the merchandiser at headheritage.co.uk!!!! No corporate "record label" required!)

But other than buying CD's from bands at shows (that is if they don't have vinyl, or yes CASSETTES!) I haven't purchased a "new compact disc" since the beginning of this decade. In part this has to do with having a nice radio gig -- access to hundreds and hundreds of new CD's per year (which yes I make copies of, and under US copyright law "audition copies for media workers" is a specifically defined "fair use" exemption, so not stealing nyah nyah.)

I have also downloaded tons of stuff (yes, it was a bit of a "mania" trying to find "everything" for awhile), though not so much these days. I suppose hypothetically I have downloaded or copied (included LP dubs on cassette before the days of CDR's) "a million dollars" worth of music, as compared to "merely" purchasing enough store-bought music to purchase a small house or a couple of nice automobiles (more than most people will ever spend on music in their lifetime.)

But the thing is, most of the stuff I downloaded is crap that got listened to once or never. I certainly wouldn't have actually purchased 99.9% of that $1 million in additional records, and thus the revenue they "lost" is 99.9% fiction.

I downloaded a bunch of Joe Walsh's solo albums cuz I was curious -- listened to just enough to confirm my suspician that there is no reason to purchase! How did Joe Walsh (or anyone else via "trickledown") lose any money because of this? Should I have had to pay for the priviledge of finding out I didn't want these records?

In fact my fondest memory of listening to Black Sabbath "Paranoid" was on an especially crappy car stereo tape player that added extra layers of flatness and distortion. Almost sounded like a whole new album. (In fact I don't think Sabbath sounds very good on CD on a good stereo -- not enough fuzz!)

I prefer music to "sound good", but I love all mediums for what they offer. As great as LP's are, they are fragile and not very portable and also more difficult to cue. Different formats suit different uses.

If I could give away a million widgits for free, it does not follow that therefore I can make $10 million selling them at $10 apiece.

Most major label acts in terms of sales volume are celebrity garbage -- if they are selling 14% less Britney Spears this year, that's a step in the right direction!

Or in a larger context -- this is really about POPULAR music, cuz that's where the money is. "Popular music" isn't as popular as it once was. That's part of the appeal of downloading OLD albums -- Blue Cheer was better than the new Sierra album from the fine folks at Sony. And if more kids are listening to old CAN albums, while failing to purchase the latest blockbuster album from SIERRA, again I say "step in the right direction!"

I'm amazed that "youngsters" (folks around 30 and under) know as much as they do these days -- it took me years of hard labor to uncover the very existence of weird stuff like Faust and Magma! Nowadays, you could have their complete discogs in hand in minutes for no money. Weird times man!

But again, what does that have to do with a music "industry" reporting a 14% loss in sales, which never got more than 0.1% of its sales from Faust, Can, Blue Cheer, you name it, anyway. The losses are coming from sales of Michael Jackson, Elvis, Beatles, Frank Sinatra, Garth Brooks, Bruce Springsteen, and all the stuff that sold a ton in the first place. Cry me a river for those guys!

As far as the "trickledown" effect --- you mean the sports arena that hosted big hair metal bands in the 80's closed down? Oh whereever shall we go to see our big hair bands now!

Personally, I like my music played in smaller more intimate settings anyway -- big shows aren't about music, they're about spectacle. If wrestling or video games become more popular spectacle-events than music concerts, again who beeeepin' cares?

I see well over a hundred shows a year, from big venues to living rooms, and it's generally a truism that the solo banjo player is more likely to blow your mind than the band that travels with a truck full of lighting equipment.