After reviewing the posts made since yesterday afternoon...

How is it that you have to 'rationalize' downloading a song as theft? Because it's really not there? It's just digitized data - it doesn't 'really' exist. Not like downloading that 45 under my coat. The reality is the rationalizing is NOT recognizing it as theft. You took it, it did not belong to you, it ordinarily requires payment, you did not pay.

The only way it is not theft is if aperson who is legitimately authorized to duplicate the song put the .mp3 up for everybody to use.

Someone said legal vs illegal as opposed to right vs wrong. Well... it's illegal. And any discussion about whether or not intellectual property is 'actually' property is simply more justification. The law settled that.

Nicole's comment illustrates just how clearly it IS stealing. There are alternatives that are fair to the artist, mp3.com among others. Give people the choice of getting their .mp3's from there and paying (and supporting the artist) or from Napster, where do you think they'll go...?

Explain to me the difference between it and stealing a CD. Because a CD cost money to make. Well you know what? So did the song. And it doesn't matter that the artist might be dead. It still cost money. And the people who put up the money are entitled to reap the benefit.

The difference is that pocketing a CD requires some intestinal fortitude. It puts a person at risk. Stealing the .mp3 is a nameless, faceless, riskless endeavor and, consequently, easier to rationalize doing.

If you don't like the situation - change the laws, don't break them.

Of course I could be all wrong... (I often am).

mc