It has to do with perceived consequences... people perceive the impact on the victims of the crime as negligible, they see the impact on the perpetrators of the crime as neglibible... if there's no effect, then nothing has actually happened, i.e., there was no crime.

You can agree or disagree with that outlook (I disagree) but that doesn't change the basic situation.

That is not theft, and therefore it is not stealing. It is copyright infringement, a totally different thing entirely unless you're the media who has been "convinced" to try and make it seem pure evil.

As an addition to what you said, people tend to demonize the people they are stealing from in an attempt to justify their actions. The people they are stealing from being the RIAA. Conveniently, the most common excuse, "it costs too much, and not enough goes to the artists!" frees them from having to admit that they are stealing from the artist(s) as well, who collect royalties from CD sales.

Apparently, however, these people who oppose the RIAA aren't well-versed in history, or they would compare their crusade against the RIAA to the American Revolution:

The American Revolution was started when Americans began turning to other sources for what they needed so that they wouldn't have to pay the high taxes which were collected without letting them get a say in what changes were made. Fearing the possibility of losing their colonies, Britain started cracking down unjustly, which pissed the Americans off even more, until it erupted into war.

The "RIAA Rebellion" was started when customers began turning to other sources (pirating) for music so that they wouldn't have to pay high prices which were collected and not distributed fairly to the artists (not the same as being represented like the Americans wanted, but I'd say this is what most music patrons would want done with their money, barring a reduction in price). Fearing the possibility of losing their customers, the RIAA started cracking down unjustly, which pissed the customers even more, until... THE FUTURE!

Of course, the argument is rather flimsy, but the obvious parallels are there, so I'd expect to see it more often.

It's just as accurate to say the "it's not stealing!" is brainwashing to make it seem innocent.

If you sneak into a concert or use deception to get in, has a theft occurred? The musicians and the concert hall are providing a service... music... for a fee... and you've bypassed that fee. How is that not theft? If you steal tickets to get in, you would agree that is theft... so what's so different? Is stealing a service really different from stealing a good? If so, what if you obtain fast food and then drive off without paying? Did you fraudulently obtain a service or did you steal goods? Aren't both theft?

And if it's possible to steal a service, then how is downloading a song not theft?

Yeah, yeah... intellectual property is a myth. What you're saying when you deny the value of intellectual property is, "Well, that's a made up concept so we don't need to pay no attention to it!"

With that attitude, we should throw out all of civilization. Our entire society is made up of made up concepts that we mutually agree to treat as real for the sake of convenience and security.

All property is intellectual. "Property" is not something that can be measured. "Property" simply does not exist in the physical world. You will not find the "ownership" of an object with the most powerful microscope imaginable.

Picture this as an excuse for stealing a bar of gold: "The bar of gold I stole isn't a bar of gold! It's information atomically encoded in protons, neutrons, and electrons! And you didn't own it! You merely own the right to it! I'll pay a small fee for violating that right, but that's all!"

A song or piece of artwork has more of a tangible existence than "property."

Given that the world we live in doesn't have an object.owner var that we can readily access, all "ownership" is merely a recognized right to something... there's nothing more concrete about your ownership of the car in your driveway then there is about a studio's ownership of a library of songs... there's not some fundamental, measurable, tangible connection between the molecules of the car and the molecules of your body... the instant you take possession of the car, no fundamental shift in the nature of the car occurs.

So why should your imaginary, made-up ownership of the car warrant more respect than the imaginary, made-up ownership of a song?

Yeah, did you see me use the word "legally"?

Legally, shmegally... the question is, IS IT YOURS?

No?

STEALING!

Your right, it IS a silly analogy, and completely irrelevent. No one MADE that chicken, grown, yes, made no. By that right anyone else who grew a chicken could be sued by any other farmer, or anyone else who grew the "first" chicken, or so they think.


Heres a better analogy:

I tell the freshmen(or anyone who does this for that matter) in my 3rd period choir class not to bang on the band equipment(they really shouldnt touch it at all, but he was actually banging on the zylophone today), they then say that the teacher doesnt say anything, but then I ask, does that make it right? No, but then, they are are not mature enough(nor have they the desire to)follow the spirit of the law, rather than the exact letter of it.

And it also has spy-ware as well. And also ther is no good music in ther enyways! And I do not use Kazaa.

Well, there are "hacked" versions of kazaa that dont have spy ware and come with many nifty tools. If you know what you are doing, it makes kazaa a lot more worth it.

It can be ether, therefor it is breaking the law and stealing.