While I do not condone piracy, "piracy" has always been a way for people to share (and learn about) new music.

Before there was the Internet, there were tape decks.

Fact is, most of the stuff that people pirate, they would never pay for anyways. For example, hypothetically, I would pay for a K.D. Lang CD, but I would prefer not to pay, but rather obtain an illegal copy of a Metallica CD.

Before there was the Internet, there were tape decks.

Ahhhh yes. I forgot about tapes! Anyone else used to record songs off the radio? It was a great way to get free mixtapes, as long as the DJ didn't drop in 20 seconds early.

However, sharing with a friend should not be illegal. I have purchased a ton of music thanks to music sharing that I never would have purchased otherwise.

Yes, this is a big point for me.

Personally, the way I've engaged in music has changed a lot in the past 15 years or so. I remember in high school, going to Amoeba every other day, flipping through the New Releases and Used Records, scrutinizing the album art and cover notes, jotting down titles to read up on later -- making sure every calculated purchase was well-researched. I definitely consumed much less music back then, but I felt like I knew those albums inside-and-out. But when I had to part with $15 upfront, it was much harder to convince myself to take a chance on something outside of my box.

Nowadays, there's so much free access to such a huge amount of music that it's hard to keep up. Things seem so much more disposable. While the breadth of music that I'm able to cover through downloads is far greater, the number of albums that I come to know intimately has dwindled. It's flavor-of-the-week and then on to the next one. When I got a 10-disc CD changer installed in my car in high school, I remember thinking "who the hell needs to have 10 CDs on tap"... now it's 160GBs at your fingertips! But then again, having such easy access to so much music exposes me to tons of stuff I wouldn't have otherwise chanced.

It seems the record industry needs to get on board with this subscription model, like Spotify. I think most people aren't against paying for music, it's just the ease and convenience of getting them on the internet is much more appealing.

He [Neil Young] says that your average MP3 file only contains about five percent of the audio from an original recording and he says Apple Lossless only offers "10.3 percent."

Haha

I don't feel very bad about piracy.  I think the record labels are ripping off the artists already and so I could care less about rewarding them for it.  I would care if it was in fact stealing from the artist though.  I guess I could say that the amount I care about pirating music is the same percentage that the artist gets paid per album.  So I care very little.  :-) 

The way the industry has reacted to piracy makes me care even less about it.  Trying to prosecute random people for downloading illegally?  Some random mother of 2 children in Omaha Nebraska who works as a waitress?  They ought to take a hard look at their business model.  If they had a fair and honest business model, I don't think piracy would exist today.  And if it did, it would be much less prevalent.  Music is worth a lot to people and if they felt some kind of connection between the money they spent and the people who were responsible for making the music, they would be happier to pay it.  At least for me.  I'm happy to pay people for their artwork.  Last concert I went to I went up to the merch counter and just gave them 20 bucks because their music meant to much to me. 

There's also the issue of trying to force people into overpaying for mediocre product.  Selling albums purposely crafted with 1 hit and 8 filler tracks and hyped with a bunch of super model "musicians".  That doesn't make people feel very good over time. 

Here's an example in Television that applies directly to the music industry as well.  Last summer I wanted to watch the World Series, but had no TV.  I tried really really hard to figure out how to watch it legally on my computer.  I was ready and willing to pay for it.  I called around.  Searched online.  Posted online.  But someone had purchased the rights to broadcast the world series, and that company hadn't set anything up online.  I bought a subscription at MLB.com, but because of the company's rights to the games, all they could broadcast was a display where you had to choose which camera, and stay with it.  And the quality was terrible, with audio coming in after the video.  I wound up watching the exact TV broadcast illegally online for free.   

It's the same idea of overreaching and attempting to manipulate consumers.