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!)

I too shun the iPod (supposedly my cheap on-sale cell phone is also an "mp3 player", but I've never bothered to figure out how that function works.)

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?

Records get scratches in them (or already have them if you buy used, which is mostly what I do) -- and cassettes don't have very good fidelity either, especially when played on those cheap "boom boxes" that used to be so popular. So what? Not everyone is an audiophile. Doesn't mean you can't still enjoy music.

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.

See above -- the phantom 48 billion does not represent sales that would have happened in the real world.

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.

Perhaps you have seen the recent cellphone commercial starring some "artist" named Sierra (sic?) -- her talent appears to be shaking her booty to slick drum machine beats while melissmatically wailing oo baby baby stuff, sort of a Beyonce-clone I guess -- point is, I am a person who follows "music" very closely and have no clue who this person is other than that she stars in a cellphone ad. In other words, she's really on TV because she's "famous for being on TV", not for her "music" (which is probably her "producer's music" anyway.)

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.