First off, MTed, there is a difference between inflammatory language and being straight forward. Some people, when they are on the wrong side of an argument (or at least feel like they are), hide behind the inflammatory comments when they don't have a better argument. I don't know if that is the case here or not.

Stealing is a concept. It is a term developed over the millennia to describe the taking of something that doesn't belong to you. It is a violation of a basic moral priniciple, or a commandment if you are a religious person of most major religious persuasions. It can also be a violation of the law. The reason that the prosecutors aren't after the users probably has to do with scale as well as the wording of the lawsuit. But that has nothing to do with immorality of taking someones property without their consent. The music is the intellectual property of the creator, to do with as they please. If you don't get this, reread Bill D's post until you do. I also object to copying from the radio, but that is a red herring arguement anyway. No one wants to copy off the radio because of quality,commercials, etc. That is why they like Napster. Near CD quality for nothing.

Now, as far as the sampling new music goes, let me make a proposal. Let's say that they could build the site so that you could listen to any cut you wanted but just couldn't download it without a fee per cut, thus giving you all the right to hear whatever music you want and as many times as you want, but you couldn't download it to CD withoug paying. That would be super, right? See.........I know you won't be honest with me here. A couple of you will say, yeah that would be fine. But most of you bigtime supporters of Napster know that the reason you like it is because you get the music without paying for it. And you have yet to admit that basic fact. And that, friend M Ted, is stealing. It is ripping off the owner of the music.

Mick