I must disagree. The fundamental premise is skewed. Here is why. It implies that there is no difference between someone who hears a song and then performs it for his/her own benefit, and taking a CD (which is produced for sale and support of the artist) and subverting the property rights of that artist by allowing listeners/potential customers to get a copy without paying. And please don't raise the old "it's no different than copying a tape or recording off the radio" argument. Those aren't right either, but Napster and the Internet mean that no one other than the person that initially purchased the CD had to pay. It is theft, pure and simple.

I have yet to have anyone admit the simple reason that they defend Napster/Gnutella, etc., is that they want something for nothing. It has nothing to do anything more than that.

Mick