[Orangedog]

I can see part of the file-swapping argument from the perspective that high taxes create a black market. Only in this situation it's not a government levying a tax, but record companies demanding nearly $20 for one or two decent songs and 9 other tracks of crap. If therecord companies had embraced online music distribution, they could have actually made a lot more money than they are getting from these lawsuits and strongarm tactics that are only encouraging more downloading on file sharing systems.

[Ipinawetsuit]

I disagree.

Whether or not the record companies embraced online music distribution is irrelevant. It does not matter who distributes the material. Once a single track is converted to mp3 format, it can be copied ad inifinium, with no payment to the record company.

Already we have witnessed a 30% decline in "legitimate" sales.

If I have a book and I give you (or sell you) the book, that is okay. But if I make a copy of the book and give you the original (or vice-versa), that is wrong because the author was not compensated for the copy which changed hands.

Same thing with mp3s. To a limited extent, I can make copies of my own original (because the author was paid by me, directly or indirectly). However, as soon as someone else gets a copy or the original (and I still have my copies), copyright infringement. The author was not compensated. It is fundamentally unfair to the author and removes any incentive to create new works.

Anyone who is in favor of file sharing of music mp3s that are not dedicated to the public by the author 1) hasn't thought about it very much, 2) hasn't seen their revenues from licenses and sales go from 1 million dollars a year in royalties to $29.99.