I NEED SUGAR

Asked.

Answered.

UPDATE:
Delivered.

Person 1: 

just in case you consider illegally downloading music... you may want to read this...

Person 2: 

It is not currently illegal to download music in Canada.

Person 1: 

That doesn't make it OK. The music industry and CRTC are working on making it illegal.

Person 2: 

Unfortunately, the industry has yet to catch up with consumer demands. It is highly inconvenient to get high quality music at a reasonable price properly organized and onto your computer. But they're close. If iTunes improved their quality I'd be back on that bandwagon as I was originally until DRM ruined it. And buying CDs is a whole other ecological nightmare. Never mind the inconvenience.

The film industry is a whole other sad state of affairs, DRMed out the whazzoo with the only way to get high-quality easily portable access by shipping discs and packaging around the world. Completely ignorant.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'll be downloading/buying used (reusing is better for the environment than buying new) and selectively supporting artist and labels until these issues are resolved. The system is broken and there's no solution, unfortunately.

Person 1: 

There is a solution ... morality. It is only right that one pays for what others see as their livelihood and or income ... no matter how "illegal" is defined.

Person 2: 

Morality isn't a solution, it's a set of principles. And, in this case, principles which don't apply to the situation. Or rather, if you argue that they do apply, you'll spend hours each time you want to buy something to determine whether or not your morals are being upheld based on your purchasing decision.

For example, for every Radiohead song published by EMI (their previous record label) which is sold online, Radiohead gets $0.00 (their original contract didn't include digital distribution royalties, because such a thing didn't exist. When EMI began distributing digitally, they didn't append the original contract to support the livelihood and/or income of their artist). By your moral standard then, I would assume that you would choose to not purchase online EMI published Radiohead songs since the income of the artist is nil. If this is the case, where do you get your EMI published Radiohead music? By buying a CD? Well, I would say that's a morally bankrupt solution since you've now quadrupled the fossil fuel output required to obtain the music by not sourcing the music through digital distribution.

And how about buying used? At least if you buy the CD used you're not increasing production, just transportation of the product to and from the store and resources required to run the store, which probably don't differ greatly from resources required for digital distribution. However, in this case, it's an empty sale for the artist, distribution and record label. The only people earning money are the original seller and the store; there are no royalties on used products. So, other than supporting the local economy, how is this different from downloading and then paying to see the artist live/buying merchandise that is otherwise not available through digital distribution methods?

Which brings us full circle back to digital distribution, which is flawed by cost, quality and efficiency restrictions that are being managed by the same record labels that choose to not pay their artists when they sell a song online (see EMI above). So, again, there is no solution, unfortunately.

Or, rather, the solution is to find alternative ways of supporting the artists/record labels that you respect and that respect you by selectively contributing to income/livelihood through concerts, merchandise, digital distribution, and so on. But this takes work, and consumers shouldn't have to work to purchase a product. So, once again, the system is broken, and it's not within our means to solve these issues. In the end, morals are wonderful, but they don't solve the problem.

Person 3: 

Turkey Bacon combo (at Belly Buster's) will solve the problem. That much is true.

Person 1: 

Just because something isn't "illegal" (yet) does not make it legal. Stealing an artist's music by downloading his/her songs without paying for them is immoral. We don't compromise morals for the sake of saving a dollar. Stealing is stealing. No compromising that principle.

Person 2: 

Actually, by definition, something that isn't illegal is legal. But that's beside the point.

The point is, your moral argument is unclear, which is the whole issue as I described above. 

There are several ways I can pay for something without the artist seeing a dime. Personally, I find it reprehensible (amoral) for someone to charge for someone else's work without compensating them, so I refuse to do so, choosing instead to put money directly into the hands of the artist (moral). By supporting companies that operate under a distribution system that encourages fleecing artists, I'd be contributing to a morally corrupt industry, which breaks the moral code you keep mentioning, which, in turn, would make me complicit in stealing from artists (amoral). 

In other words, passing moral judgement without considering all the facts is not principled, it's ignorant. This is not a black and white issue between consumer and artist, and therefore is not a simple issue of consumer theft. As a result of the layers of distribution and subsequent layers of ownership that are generally in place and always different, there's no clear path to consumer ownership/licensing.

Another case in point: if you subscribe to cable, which broadcasts an episode of Lost, which doesn't get recorded because your PVR malfunctions, so you download that episode of Lost through a torrent so you can watch it, is that stealing? Clearly, you already purchased the rights to watch that program through your cable subscription, but because you watched it through another method other than your cable box, does that mean you've stolen something from someone? I don't see anything morally reprehensible about this action. Would you? Canadian law doesn't see anything objectionable here. But I can guarantee you that content lobbyists want this act to be considered illegal. Is that amoral of them because they're trying to steal back the rights you paid for with your cable subscription? Or do you agree that those rights are limited to the output from your cable box? What if you record it? (Remember VCRs?) What are your rights then? None of these questions have been answered. I hardly find it at all reasonable that you suggest this is stealing or amoral or against reasonable principles. In the digital age, access is access. Pay once, access where you will.

On the other hand, looking back at the cable broadcast model, the artist was theoretically (depending on the myriad contracts that exist between cable company, network, producers, etc) paid through the ad revenue from the cable broadcaster airing it, which ad revenue increases based on the number of people watching, but you didn't watch it during the broadcast because the PVR broke and therefore didn't register you as tuned in, so the cable company would assume one less viewer and, theoretically again, need to adjust their ad rates based on that dropped viewer. Except the cable company isn't tracking viewership so closely in the first place, so none of this really matters in the grand scheme of things, except that lobbyists are trying to put laws in place to fine you for just such an action.

At which point, you have to ask yourself, why is it a consumer issue that producers aren't working to monetize their program in an age of digital distribution. The answer is, it shouldn't be the consumer's issue. But because the distribution model is broken and they don't know how to fix it, they're putting this on the consumer, masquerading content access as "theft" and "stealing". Sadly, you're appearing to drink the Kool-Aid that the RIAA and other content lobbyists are spewing forth. It's all weak-minded hogwash from a bunch of old school industry buffoons who have been caught with their pants down as their closed distribution model has opened up with new technology.

The people with brains who understand the failure of the distribution model are getting my money because they're creating new distribution models and value for their art. The people who are blaming consumers for their incompetence while they put the screws to the artists are not getting my money and are getting an earful from me. And the artists that I support are making more money than they've ever made from me because I'm working outside of a distribution model that would otherwise have me buying used CDs which, again, gets the artist nothing even thought it's technically not stealing (but by your logic surely more moral than downloading, which nets the artist the exact same amount of money. Which consequently must make buying used less moral than buying a new CD, since the artist theoretically gets money from each CD sold, even though I would consider it amoral to buy a CD because of the environmental waste it creates). 

Again, this is not a black and white issue. If you take your moral argument to its logical conclusion, you simply cannot buy music right now because every method is stealing from someone in the distribution chain. Buy digitally and the artist may get nothing. Buy at a concert and the artist is circumventing the retail and warehousing distribution chain. Buy a CD from a retail store and the artist is getting less while you're contributing even more to the destruction of the planet (granted, that doesn't affect the artist directly, but it's one heck of a reason to not buy CDs and more important and destructive and amoral to me than a conveniently limited view of what stealing is).

In the end, we get back to the only absolute truth in this discussion, which is: the distribution model for consumer access to music (and TV and film) is broken. It's not the consumer's job to fix it; that's in the hands of the industry. And until a clear understanding of rights has been reached (particularly in the eyes of the law, absolutely in the eyes of the consumer), consumer access to that content will be based on convenience, regardless of old-school distribution methods or contracts between artists and distributors, most of which do not apply to or consider new media. In all cases, and for all parties mentioned in this discussion, there are compromises (moral or otherwise) and there is not black and white judgement of amorality or law that can be passed on any one group within the chain because the boundaries are still being defined.