[RootbeaR]

I think it will improve quality.

I think it hurts the RIAA, but it doesn't hurt music.

Rush seems to think so as well. Has created a large demand for live concerts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPmQJJbByUo

[tomdkat]

I don't think the Internet hurts music but I think some people's use of it certainly does.

I'll check out the YouTube video when I get home.

Peace...

[iwassnow]

I'm not admitting to being a pirate, but I don't see any musicians living in hovels because their music gets downloaded. Many of them make millions of dollars in a few weeks, which is more than middle class families make in a decade or three. And lower class families like the one I was raised by, won't have made that much in their life after you gut out the taxes.

[tomdkat]

The point is, at least to me, NOT how much the artists make or anything like that. Who am I to decide when you, or anyone else, has made enough money? It's about what I call illegal electronic (or digital) music distribution (when talking about the Internet). If a band wants to use the Internet to distribute their music, by all means let them publish their music on the Internet. The problem comes in when I decide on my own to distribute some band's music without their prior knowledge or consent.

R.E.M. made an album, or at least some tracks, available on the Internet. I've got no issue with that. If they give the music away or charge what they want for it, more power to them.

Metallica did not authorize me to distribute their music on the Internet, so why should I think it's ok to do so myself? I bought a Metallica CD so I could listen to the music, not so I could make it available to people online and in an anonymous fashion.

It's not about the dollars.

Peace...