What a Crappy Present

I feel I have to elaborate on the above post. I still do think that sharing music which is legal to share is the best possible thing, as much as it is better to use and share Free Software instead of illegally sharing non-free software.

However, I believe that the issue with music is alot different. I think you can't just say someone not to listen to certain songs just because they are distributed under nonfree terms. Music is not software. Choosing to completely limit yourself to only what is available in the pool of freely and legally shareable music is choosing to severely limit your exposure to a big part of culture. This culture is essentially what inspires people to create more culture. Suppose that the culture you want to create is free one and thus the music that you'd make is legally and freely shareable. But how would you make the best of it if you so severely limit your exposure to culture by not listening to nonfree music.

So, what choices do you have? You have similar choices as with software, but with one big difference.

You can..

- choose to abide by the law and not share music that is not free, hence accepting to act antisocially refusing to share with your friends

- choose to not abide by the law and share non-free music as well as free music (the disadvantage of this is mere illegality)

- choose not to listen to non-free music at all and listen only to freely sharable music instead (this however removes a huge chunk of culture from your domain)

So what is the best thing to choose?

Maybe some would say that it is best to refuse all non-free music and listen and expose yourself to only freely shareable music because that *seemingly* should contribute to expanding Free Culture at the expense of nonfree culture.

However, there is a catch. Alot of the great musical works are in the domain of nonfree music, works that are precious sources of inspiration upon which we could build new Free Culture. If we limit ourselves from it, however, from what would we draw inspiration? From the limited pool of existing Free Culture? I don't think that cuts it.

Even Richard Stallman once used proprietary operating system to build a free one. If he chose not to use any proprietary software no matter what, then I don't think we'd see Free Software movement where it is today.

With music it is a similar situation, except that the diversity of culture overall will be much harder to recreate in the realm of Free Culture.

So, you're left with two other choices, share all music even if it is illegal sometimes, or use, but don't share music that isn't legally shareable.

The former is ethical and you have an intrinsic right to it. The latter is legal, but not ethical.

Now considering what you know about the music industry and its practices today, you be the judge of what is best.

Thank you

That's awesome! Rock on! (as they'd say ).

Really, knowing that it is natural for people to share, knowing that most of the money actually doesn't go to the bands/artists and knowing to who the money really goes to and what do they do with it, I say to hell with the only supposed discentive not to share all music; that it is illegal.

It may be illegal, but it is so only because the law, which apparently sucks bad, says so. Bad laws are not to be followed!

So, maybe outright saying this is even against the terms of use of my hosting company (saying not to promote "piracy" and illegal activities), but frankly I don't care anymore. So what? Close my site?! Sure, go ahead!

I guess seeing that site so vividly making the point just spills it over for me. Illegal or not, excercise your inherent right! SHARE!

Thank you very much!