When you go to a library, you can take out the book and read it, but it would be stealing from the author and publisher to copy it and start publishing it yourself. That is what has been happening with Napster. Not everyone was just listening so they could sample before buying. In the link I provided above, the article discussed the need and the acknowledgement by one of the founders of Napster, that it is necessary to provide the technology without taking work from the creators without their consent. Metallica did a service to all the "little people" who create for a living and need to be paid for their work to put food on the table. Metallica had the money for lawyers and the fame to make the issue visible.

Read the article! Protecting the work of artists and musicians is the right thing to do. If the work is out of print, then music sites could link you to something like out of print bookstores/record stores, where you find a copy. The point is, this technology can be provided in such a way that the consent of the artists can be asked BEFORE their work is used, and some other way, such as ad sales, can provide remuneration to the artist for the use of their work. We have the technology to do this in a way that better protects the livelihood and ownership of people's work. I make a living from selling the rights to reproduce my work. I have had to be constantly educating clients about copyright law, because most people just don't understand it. If your boss came to you and said, sorry, I don't think I'll pay you for last months work, would you not realize that is illegal? Why are artists and musicians expected to give their work away for free? Public domain lyrics and tunes are a different subject. I am talking about people who create for a living and need to have their work legally protected. I posted a previous thread regarding this subject called "electronic tip jar". click here That thread links to a site that discusses the Coalition for the Future of Music.click here