Supporting the RIAA

[horse-fly]

After countless posts of people saying they will download the stuff online, I have come to the terms that the RIAA is a good thing. I am flatout tired of people just downloading whatever just to save a couple of dollars. If you really like your music, then buy the CD, or if you like a movie, go watch in theaters or buy the DVD. I don't care if you guys yell at me for being stupid, do what you like, but also keep in mind that you aren't the person who has the choice to give something that doesn't belong to you out for free. It is simple as that.

[CaboWaboAddict]

I agree with you. The only way I condone free downloads, are if you already own a copy of the material (damaged CD, vinyl record, etc.) or if its out of print.

[siebe83]

hey!
this place is for bitching, not agreeing
anyway...

since i'm downloading music i've become more 'familiar' with more styles than i was a few years ago
i never bought cd's before, but since i now know (more or less) what's out there, i now regularly do
it's not that black-white that it'd be a fact that downloading leads to less-buying...
for me it's the opposite
i discovered music on the internet i never heard of before and i'd never had bought it if i hadn't found it...

(fuck my english, btw...)

[squakMix]

Here's my simple answer:

I dont have a job, therefore(sp), I dont have cash to spend. My "Buy" list is huge right now, and cds are near the bottom. I am a lazy bastard without a car, so I would have to work to get a ride to spend my money. This is just simply more convenient.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I don't have a problem with buying a CD... what I have a problem with is buying a CD for $20 or more. For an hour's worth of music, a CD shouldn't cost any more than $5. Shit, it only costs $2 to actually produce the CD and put it on the store shelves, so they're still making a hell of a profit. All the RIAA is doing right now is lining their already-fat pocketbooks.

In short: If they'd drop the price to a reasonable level, I'd buy CDs again. Until then, they can kiss my ass.

[MikioZen]

you obviously dont know what the history of the internet is... paying to use the web is bad enough... paying to share content is even worse... the internet was made and used for sharing info for free.. but the green thumb took it all away.

[ShyShy]

As with Cabo and siebe, I've only downloaded when I couldn't get the cd anymore, and the songs that I liked from a particular album, I wouldn't have bought the cd if I wasn't able to test out some songs first.

[horse-fly]

Originally posted by squakMix
Here's my simple answer:

I dont have a job, therefore(sp), I dont have cash to spend. My "Buy" list is huge right now, and cds are near the bottom. I am a lazy bastard without a car, so I would have to work to get a ride to spend my money. This is just simply more convenient.

So laziness justifies stealing music?

Originally posted by MikioZen
you obviously dont know what the history of the internet is... paying to use the web is bad enough... paying to share content is even worse... the internet was made and used for sharing info for free.. but the green thumb took it all away.

If the artist chooses to give their music away for free, then let them. But when someone gives away something for free, that is a gift, but when that person gives away thousands of copies of a CD, when they paid (if they paid) for a single copy, and they still have it, then that is piracy. It isn't your decision to say what is or what isn't free when it comes to something that you don't own.

[deeder7001]

i download to see if i like the songs from that artist or if that album i'm looking for is out of print, such as Origin from Evanescence. i bought my revis and norah jones cds because i liked the songs that i downloaded.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by horse-fly
If the artist chooses to give their music away for free, then let them.

Once an artist records, he doesn't choose shit!
All he chooses is when and how long to go on tour to make his cut. Thats whats wrong with the RIAA! and after 12 years or whatever, the Artist doesn't even get his sliver of record sales anymore. Fuck if I ever buy anything over 12-15 years old (its some rediculously short peroid like that).
Here's my biggest beef:
cassetes used to cost $7-8, and are much more expensive to create than CD's (READ: working mechanical parts compared to a CD).
But Cd's were supposedly expensive because of theri newness, and the price was supposed to drop to cassette like levels.

Well, the RIAA decided, "If we keep CD prices rediculasly high while production cost drop off the grand canyon, we Win, or margins will kick ass. What are the consumers going to do about it, they can't buy the music they want from anyone but us!"
So, many people like myself, when technology became common and has granted us another source, have responded with a big middle finger.

ps
dont try to tell me about inflation, because it hasn't risen a fart as much as music.
pss
and this doesn't just go back to the advent of CD's, ever since the crap teeny boppin pop music of the 50's, the RIAA has done its best to control and monopolize a rediculasly controlable market.

[horse-fly]

So if something is overprice, it is OK to steal it? I guess we should all resort to anarchy. The people who are giving away the music have no rights to give it away.

We also live in a capitalist society, so deal with it, shakey.

[deeder7001]

i don't support what RIAA is doing, suing people. i usually find a good price for cds $10-$14. i think that people should stop going to sam goody and buying that overpriced broken case crap. i bought 1 cd there and the case was cracked already. this is why i go to circuit city, target, best buy and walmart to buy my cds, it's cheaper.

[gaekwad2]

So if something is overprice, it is OK to steal it? I guess we should all resort to anarchy. The people who are giving away the music have no rights to give it away.

It's not stealing!
What you buy in a shop is a piece of plastic and some paper and not a licence to listen to the music.

We also live in a capitalist society, so deal with it, shakey.

"Deal with it" doesn't mean "agree with it".

And don't give ma that "poor artist" crap, they usually get 7% of CD price, which are first used to pay recording, videos, promotion etc. So most artists get absolutely nothing for the CDs they record.
They make lots more money on merchandise and concert tickets.

Not to mention the 99% of artists that don't make any money with their music.

Of course the RIAA will use the money you spend on CDs to make sure you never hear about them and continue to support their cash cows. And to buy more pliticians so they can take even more rights away from you (like recording from radio/tv).

That's capitalism: It's all about the money, and if they can make money buttraping you and you give them the power to do so they will.

And as for Anarchy: It's already upon us, laws become worthless if whoever has enough money can buy the lawmakers!

[lostonline]

I buy alot of CDs and my collection is still growing quite fast but I can't afford to buy all the CDs I want, but I try to buy as often as possible. CDs are overpriced and I think that a lower price whilst making less money per CD would increase sales and make more money overall (not that it's needed) and would make customers happy, the music industry can't claim that they are all poor.

[protegechris]

I haven't bought a CD in forever. It's hard for someone myage to find a job, better yet one that pays anything. My last job working for a landscape company barely paid enough to keep my station running, and shit, if I did have any money left, I would give it to my mom to help out with whatever.

horse-fly, just because someone is unemployed doesn't make them lazy. My house has almost just enough money to get by on, screw worrying about buying CD's. Fact is, if you don't have any money, it's impossible to buy CD's. I'd rather pay my electric bill than buy the new CD which I can just download instead.

If you've got the money to blow, sure, go buy a CD, but if you don't have any to spare, download it. There are plenty of other people who are still buying the CD's.

[gaekwad2]

I stopped buying CDs (got 300+) when they started sueing people.

Not that I think it will hurt them much but at least I won't support them further.

[ElChevelle]

The RIAA has been gouging me for years.
Time to get even.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by horse-fly
We also live in a capitalist society, so deal with it, shakey.

we also live in a society with anti-trust laws. But noone seems to give a shit about that. Its not capitalism anymore, we live in a very capitalistic-leaning socialist society. Has been that way since the turn of the late 1800's.

[historic-political rant]
and especially since fuckin' FDR decided to start the worthless Social security system. Im almost 20, I pay into it every paycheck, and I'll never see a fucking dime from social security.
[/historic-political rant]

[horse-fly]

So if I write a screenplay, and someone uses it without my permission, I am basically screwed? No, as copyright laws protect me. I didn't give my screenplay away. Someone just took it. If someone paid me royalties for using my screenplay, then fine.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
It's not stealing!
What you buy in a shop is a piece of plastic and some paper and not a license to listen to the music.

That may be true, but on that piece of plastic and paper says "unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws." In most cases, you are allowed to have an archive copy. But when someone downloads your mp3 collection, when they don't own a copy of the music already, that is "Unauthorized duplication."

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Not to mention the 99% of artists that don’t make any money with their music.

So by taking their music without royalties is supposed to earn them a paycheck?

Originally posted by protegechris
horse-fly, just because someone is unemployed doesn't make them lazy

What squak said is that he IS lazy. I never said the unemployed are lazy.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Its not capitalism anymore, we live in a very capitalistic-leaning socialist society.

Are you even aware of what socialism is? Socialism is “a theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.” I don’t see an “equitable distribution of property and labor” in the United States.

As my last word on this post, music is not a right. Just because there are the means to download whatever you want doesn’t make it right. But if you still want to listen to music, there are plenty of free legitimate mp3 site around. You can go to those instead of ripping of artists and recording labels.

[zootm]

The argument for institutions like the RIAA would be a lot stronger if their treatment of artists was at all fair. Their monopolising of the market means that artists who wish to be published are left with very little real choice but to accept an unfavourable contract.

[gaekwad2]

That may be true, but on that piece of plastic and paper says "unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws." In most cases, you are allowed to have an archive copy. But when someone downloads your mp3 collection, when they don't own a copy of the music already, that is "Unauthorized duplication."

Stealing is still a false analogy.

It implies that instead of downloading you would have bought the CD, which in most cases is ridiculous. The term is part of the music industry's propaganda that tries to make believe they actually lose $15 (or whatever CDs cost in the US) with every downloaded album.

So by taking their music without royalties is supposed to earn them a paycheck?

Since they'd never see any of those royalties anyway it would be better for them if the record industry had less money for payola, maybe then they'd actually have a chance of getting played on the radio and, yes, earn money (by selling concert tickets, as mentioned above).

Music is not a right because those who'd like it to be don't have the power to make it so. There are no natural or god-given rights, if the powers that be decided that art should be free for everybody then it would be.

Instead the supply of music has to be artificially limited (in quanitity and quality it seems) simply because a capitalist economy needs a limited supply.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Stealing is still a false analogy.

It implies that instead of downloading you would have bought the CD, which in most cases is ridiculous. The term is part of the music industry's propaganda that tries to make believe they actually lose $15 (or whatever CDs cost in the US) with every downloaded album.

I don't follow that... It sounds like your saying that because I can't afford a $150,000 Ford GT-40, its Ok for me to go take one?

Let me cast my vote for you now as our next president!

[zootm]

His point is that they quantify their "loss" as the full price of every CD downloaded.

But 9 times out of 10, even without the internet, the person would not have bought the CD. People download more music (per user) than they ever bought before, something that's clearly evident from comparing the RIAA's "price" for their downloaded music against their overall income. And a not inconsiderable amount of the time, the person will buy the CD after downloading a few tracks off of it. The RIAA still account this as a loss, however.

Almost all the numbers they provide are meaningless, is the point, and I'd defy anyone to provide remotely convincing evidence to the contrary.

File sharing allows me to spend the money that I have set aside for music on good music.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Napster and the like allow previewing the music. So that argument has no meaning.

The traditional distribution channels are bloated and inefficient. There are a lot of people to pay. Think about the workers, shippers, packagers, etc. at every stop that disk makes on it way from the plant to the store. I agree its time for a change. But I also say, that taking that song with no intent to purchase is the same as the Ford GT example I gave above.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by horse-fly
After countless posts of people saying they will download the stuff online, I have come to the terms that the RIAA is a good thing. I am flatout tired of people just downloading whatever just to save a couple of dollars. If you really like your music, then buy the CD, or if you like a movie, go watch in theaters or buy the DVD. I don't care if you guys yell at me for being stupid, do what you like, but also keep in mind that you aren't the person who has the choice to give something that doesn't belong to you out for free. It is simple as that.

This just means the RIAA's propaganda has worked with you. The RIAA claims it fights it's war to help the artists. The RIAA helps it's members alright, but none of them are artists:

http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

It is in fact the RIAA who is against the artists expecially when it comes to keeping the labels in control of them which was wintessed in California - here is the RIAA's reasoning:

http://www.riaa.com/issues/laborcode/default.asp

The RIAA has also repeatedly lied to the consumers by telling us that P2P is hurting their industry:

The 31% decline in music sales between 1999 and 2002 is primarily due to piracy, Sherman told this week's Financial Times New Media and Broadcasting Conference in London.

This came from an RIAA press release called "The Industry Is Devistated" : http://musicdish.com/mag/index.php3?id=9338

The RIAA is so dumb it even contradicts that information on it's own website:

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2003yearEnd.pdf

According to their own data it was a 7.2 percent drop, not 30%+. But even that info is wrong.

Soundscan is a service owned by Nielsen, the company that computes TV ratings. Soundscan uses the barcodes on CDs to register sales at record stores. The correlated data contributes to the Billboard chart listings, as well as much of the market research that record companies use to determine which artists are worth keeping under contract.

So Soundscan is who actually tracks record sales at the retail level - the place where people like you and I buy our CD's.

- For the first quarter of 2003 Soundscan registered 147,000,000 records sold.

- For the 1st quarter of 2004 Soundscan will report 160,000,000 records sold.

That's 13,000,000 more units, almost a 10% increase in sales since last year. He also confessed that 1st quarter "album sales" (as opposed to overall sales) had increased 9.4% since 2003.

160,000,000 X an average 15.99 retail price = 2.558 Billion Dollars in sales.

My analysis suggests that the number one reason for the loss of jobs in the industry is self-perpetuating major label PR, and that the number one cause of loss of unit sales revenue for artists is STILL record label accounting practices. And...those are the people the RIAA represent - the labels themselves.

If you think being mad at people trading files you should be twice ad mad at the labels since they rip off the artists and they rip us off as well.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/n...ttlement_x.htm

Get rid of the RIAA and I would fully agree with you. As long as the RIAA exists I support the artist through attending concerts and buying merchandise. I do not support them at the profit of the record labels.

They already get $2,500 a year in royalties from me. What the fuck more do they want and where is my guarantee that money has ever been seen by one single artist?

[protegechris]

Too tired to read it, but I'm sure you prove your point

Megarock is the resident RIAA-expert

[zootm]

Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Napster and the like allow previewing the music. So that argument has no meaning.

Record company monopolies such as the RIAA have been charging royalties so high to these services that the most successful ones currently break even (iTunes, for example). So I don't think the argument "has no meaning", as the record companies are clearly still hostile to any digital media dissemination that they do not have full control over. Also, a 10/30/whatever second sample is barely a sample of the music. It's subject to creative slanting, and aids the companies' goals of shifting an inferior product yet again.

Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
The traditional distribution channels are bloated and inefficient. There are a lot of people to pay. Think about the workers, shippers, packagers, etc. at every stop that disk makes on it way from the plant to the store. I agree its time for a change. But I also say, that taking that song with no intent to purchase is the same as the Ford GT example I gave above.

The analogy, then, does not apply to my usage of file sharing software. Why am I at risk?

And yes, digital distribution could be where things are going (which gives at least some credence to the argument that what you get for free is the same as what you pay for), but, as I mentioned above, it's hardly being embraced. The advent of filesharing has forced into the open just how much profit these companies make on everything they sell, and how little of that they pass onto the people who are making the music.

Wait for independant online distributors. There's a few springing up already.

[MegaRock]

The advent of filesharing has forced into the open just how much profit these companies make on everything they sell, and how little of that they pass onto the people who are making the music.

Indeed and there is no way to stop them. If you continue to buy music from them they continue to profit which means they continue their control of the music industry and continue profiting off the backs of artists.

The only way to stop them is to take their source of power - and that is the money they profit with. Eventually smart artists will figure out (many already have) that you don't need a major label to make a hit record and sell it without any RIAA member help, they can sell it at a fraction of the cost and at the same time profit several times better than they do with the major label representation.

The industry must change. The artists deserve more money for what they do. The labels deserve little to nothing. And at least for now file trading is the only tool we have that attacks the very foundation of what the profiting members of the RIAA have created.

[horse-fly]

Megarock, but what gives you the right to go and download my intellectual property without my permission. It isn't your decision to determine what is free or not when it comes to someone else's material. Just because something may be overpriced doesn't mean it is ok to take it without paying for it (ie stealing).

I don't care it the RIAA is lying about the numbers concerning profit, as this is supposed to be a more philosophical discussion.

[gaekwad2]

Just because something may be overpriced doesn't mean it is ok to take it without paying for it (ie stealing).

See what i just did?!? I stole your intellectual property. I took credit for something you said. But wait.. I can't help but notice, affexed to my own post, your quote is still there, glaringly obvious for all to see...
Surely if I stole it, it must be gone. Mayhaps a diffrent crime has taken place, but theft it can not be...
(stolen from this Slashdot page.)

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by horse-fly
Megarock, but what gives you the right to go and download my intellectual property without my permission. It isn't your decision to determine what is free or not when it comes to someone else's material. Just because something may be overpriced doesn't mean it is ok to take it without paying for it (ie stealing).

I don't care it the RIAA is lying about the numbers concerning profit, as this is supposed to be a more philosophical discussion.

I call it an eye for an eye. From 1990 - 1996 the record labels conspired to artifically inflate the prices of CD, it was proven to be illegal and in return I got a check for 12.99. Considering the hundreds of discs I bought they got alot more than I got back.

It's not my fault any artist does business with the same record labels that ripped me off. Since they have the artists under contract it is in all respects the property of the record labels and I am simply paying them back for ripping me off for six years.

Eye for an eye is all the reasoning I need - it's in the Bible. That's as philosophical as it gets. If you don't want me to steal your property then don't sign your property over to the people who's been stealing my money for six full years.

[xzxzzx]

I think that one of the problems here is that people think that they are arguing the same points, while they aren't.

1. Major record labels are evil, and we shouldn't have to pay $20 for a CD.
2. Artists get little to nothing from purchasing CDs, so you're not hurting the artist that much by not purchasing their CD, and it's better to go see them on tour.
3. It is evil to take intellectual property which doesn't belong to you.

None of these points are in conflict. The conflict comes when you use one of these to justify another action.

• "CDs are too expensive, therefore it's ok to steal/download them"
• "Artists aren't getting paid, therefore it's ok to steal/download a CD, because that way the artist gets my money from a concert/whatever"

This does not logically follow. These are made-up justifications for morally bankrupt behavior. If you think the RIAA is evil, and therefore shouldn't be supported, the solution is very, very simple - don't support them. Don't buy music from artists that have signed with the record labels that the RIAA represent.

That doesn't make it OK to now steal that music. It doesn't even come close - by stealing the music which you weren't going to buy, you aren't even hurting the RIAA. You don't even have that flimsy reason to stand on. You are simply taking something for personal gain without regard to the work done in creating the thing, and, yes, marketing, making videos, etc (even though the labels get far more than their fair share).

Don't think you are some sort of "Robin Hood" by stealing/"sharing" music. You're not. You're not "hurting the man". You've already hurt him all you can by not buying the music. You're simply a thief. A pirate. A robber. Someone taking things which are not theirs for no reason but personal gain.

If you simply must have some music on your PC, find some independent artists that you like and buy their CDs.


----
----
----

Megarock, your justification ("The RIAA stole my money by illegally inflating prices!") is interesting, if untenable. It's not like you went to the record store, saw "12.99" on a sticker, and now, years later, you find that you were actually charged "18.99" on your credit card. You were fully aware of what the cost of that CD was, and you chose to purchase it anyway. There was no RIAA hitman (or... ugh... lawyer) standing at the door asking you how many CDs you've bought in the last month to see if you've filled the quota.

You knew the price, you chose the purchase, and now you should realize the truth.

If you're going to download music, I can't stop you, but don't think it isn't theft, or that it's somehow justified. It certainly isn't.

----
----
----

gaekwad2: Your analogy (or intellectual property, which, by your own description, is stolen - ironically) is cute, but way off the mark.

First of all, horse-fly is not charging for viewing of his remark, nor does Winamp's forums.
Secondly, no one gains anything by copying it, neither enjoyment or profit.
Third, you reproduced only a snippet of the post, or the thread. You'd need to host this entire thread somewhere else to really have anywhere close to an accurate analogy.
...
I could go on, but I think that's enough, don't you?

----
----
----

Originally posted by gaekwad2:
What you buy in a shop is a piece of plastic and some paper and not a licence to listen to the music.

No, actually, it isn't. If you buy Windows XP (a different, but mostly the same type of intellectual property), you're purchasing a license to use the software, and a physical copy. Microsoft actually separates these in some cases, as do many software companies. Record labels typically don't.

[MegaRock]

Megarock, your justification ("The RIAA stole my money by illegally inflating prices!") is interesting, if untenable. It's not like you went to the record store, saw "12.99" on a sticker, and now, years later, you find that you were actually charged "18.99" on your credit card. You were fully aware of what the cost of that CD was, and you chose to purchase it anyway.

Edited because I had a better (and shorter way of saying it).

Back when this happened (price fixing) there was no other choice. Either pay the inflated prices or you will not get the music. You either let them screw you or you did not get the music, period.

Now there is a choice. Continue buying CD's through the major record labels and continue to get screwed by them as they screw the artists - or don't. I simple choose to say what millions of others have - we are simply not going to do business with them unless there is no other choice.

I have actuallty written several bands I don't like and told them I wanted their CD but I wanted to buy it directly from them knowing they got the money. You would be suprised how many sent me their music on a non-retail formatted disc and said they fully understand where I stand.

I have also accomplished getting royalty free music from several of the mid-sized labels who also believe that I should not have to pay royalties on my net station because I promote their music and give exposure to their artists.

You see, once record labels became profit machines until P2P came along they had the control. Not the artists, songwriters, producers, engineers, etc. They get a mere pittance and the fat cats at the labels get rich.

Now the music industry as a whole is at a crossroads. Technology has advanced far enough to virtually elimiate the modern record label distribution network as we know it. In all respects within ten years you won't need record stores, you won't need to distribute CD's to them which means you don't need the record labels at all anymore.

And that is what the fight is for. Now consumers are voicing their opinion by the millions on P2P networks that they are sick of the current way the music industry exists with the record labels and theur utter control and I believe it will continue until the very model of the music industry changes and when it does it may very well elimiate the record labels.

[xzxzzx]

But Megarock, can you not see what you're pointing out?

Either pay the inflated prices or you will not get the music. You either let them screw you or you did not get the music, period.
Now there is a choice. Continue buying CD's through the major record labels and continue to get screwed by them as they screw the artists - or don't. I simple choose to say what millions of others have - we are simply not going to do business with them unless there is no other choice.

Right. So don't buy the music. How, exactly, are you not getting screwed just as much by prices today as you were back then? What "choice" have you gained?

Price fixing sure as hell fucked the small record stores, but I don't see how it did much to the consumer.

Megarock, I don't disagree with most of your points. The RIAA is evil. Artists do deserve more money, and technology is disrupting the classic record distrobution structure.

That doesn't translate into making it OK to pirate music. The only thing that will actually bring about a change in the record labels is buying less music, and according to you, that isn't happening.

[horse-fly]

If you people want to boycott the RIAA, then don't use any of their products, like the music they produce. If you feel like you are making a dent in their wallets by pirating music, kudos to you, but they are probably going to make more money if they sue you, so no more kudos to you. If the RIAA is a monopoly like you all said, then sue them. Try to get more than 5$ oout of them this time around.

Like xzxzzx said, there is no justification for the actions.

[squakMix]

Originally posted by horse-fly
So laziness justifies stealing music?

No. My justification is that it is directly better for me to pirate music than to download it. My post adressed mentality(sp), not justification.

[whiteflip]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Don't think you are some sort of "Robin Hood" by stealing/"sharing" music. You're not. You're not "hurting the man". You've already hurt him all you can by not buying the music.

Oh man these threads are so hard to read but yeah I need to put an idea forward. So say you did buy the album and you shared it on a file sharing network. Is that good or bad? I share my ogg vorbis files on file sharing networks because I want people to hear what type of music I like so they will go out and buy it like I did. I also want to perpetuate a codec I think is superior by supporting it. I supported the artists and or the labels by buying the music. Now I'm trying to get more people into it by sharing it online. I've bought a paul oakenfolds greatest hits album because of file sharing networks. I also bought the Kill Bill album after downloading it and... I hate to say this but... The Avril Lavigne Album.

I'll read all of the posts in due time. These heated threads of ideas are hard for me to grapple with so please bear with me.

[horse-fly]

It isn't whether you bought a cd because of you heard the music from Kazaa. It is a discussion more focused on the morality and rights of the groups involved.

[xzxzzx]

The distinction between "sharing" music and stealing it may seem subtle, but it really isn't. If a person downloads music to listen to it (i.e. "I want this CD, so I'll go download it"), that's pirating. If a person downloads music to find out about it (i.e. "I heard of group X, I wonder what their music is like?" or "I heard Metallica's newest album sucks, I wonder what I'd think of it"), that's truely morally justifyable - it's marketing for the artist. Is it legal? Nope.

The intent, and the listening done to the music should make this clear.

As for the question of whether "sharing" music is truely morally justifyable - yes. The act of sharing is not, in and of itself, evil - it's the downloader that decides that. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that you can get your ass sued.

[horse-fly]

I am sure most music sites dedicated to musicians have 30 samples that people can download. I have seen it on some site. So if you are going to sample something, try the artist's page, or even amazon.com.