[richlevy]

Originally posted by Dagnabit
wst: "You can't use Napster as a radio substitute. Radio stations pay for the priviledge of playing all that music and the fees they pay are distributed amongst the artists that they play."

What matters to me more is intent. When I use Napster, I use it as a replacement for radio. It has encouraged me to buy more music. I do not download entire albums as replacements for buying the disks. My intent is to reward the *right* artists, the ones who appeal to me; and, in this and many other cases, following the letter of the law would lead to a worse result for *all* involved.

Actually, my favorite band, the one which introduced me to a whole genre of music, I heard because of free tracks on MP3.COM. This was important because their music cannot be found in any chain record store.

In the 1950's you used to be able to go into a record store and try out the records. Now, even though CD's cost more than vinyl used to, there is no "try before you buy". Unless it is part of a small subset of songs programmed into a "listening station", you have no way of telling whether you like most of a CD. In many cases you are buying because of only one song heard on the radio or MTV.

Music purchases are one of the least informed consumer choices we make, and we let them do this to us.

As for stocking independent bands and artists, most chain music stores stink at this. In part it is because they have become lazy and dependent on distributors too heavily linked to the "big 5" record companies. One of these days there might actually be a report which shows that some chain store actually pays a fine for every indy label CD they stock.