El Greko, the analogy would work if the shoemaker put the shoes out in a basket with a sign that said "take my shoes and try them out." Harvey put the songs on his website so people would download them as samples. Some WILL just get stuff for free, but they likely wouldn't have bought a recording anyway. And who's to say the guy didn't go buy Harvey's CD somewhere besides from Harvey? (He probably would have said so if he had, though.)

In the U.S., there are sites which charge a small amount to download a song - the new Napster being one. If all ISPs in the US paid the royalties, would all internet distributors of music then not have to charge people? It seems to make more sense for the distributors to collect royalties from downloaders, then pass them on, than every person having to pay, regardless of whether they get the 'product' or not.

What El Greko said: I suppose it's simply a matter of targeting the people in the chain that absolutely HAVE to stay legal to continue to do business. Finding and proscecuting the people distributing and downloading music illegally is just too darned difficult, even if it's the most logical and correct way to do things.

I'm all for people getting what should be theirs. This just seems like SOCAN wants as big a chunk of money they can get from whoever they can force to pay it.