Yes, Meta, I think I get your point. It's the old Robin Hood story writ large, that is, it's OK to steal from people who you have decided have a lot of money. That might make you feel better than if you were to steal from some poor bugger, but it doesn't change the fact that you're stealing and you're a thief. Here's some more gross rationalization of immorality: "Stealing an album isn't quite the same as not paying your gardener. If you don't pay your gardener then the labour he's expended cutting your lawn is lost and can't be recovered. It's not re-usable. The same thing doesn't quite apply to stealing an album, which can be downloaded 1000s of times, over and over again, without extra labour being expended on the part of it's creator. ... So (given the reusability of the resource) we can't say for sure that the creator is 'losing' anything (either in terms of labour or profits)... can we?" Let me make it easy for you. Philosophically, morally and etc. there is absolutely no difference in stealing from your gardener and stealing an album. Both are theft, in which you've intentionally benefited from someone's labor without compensating them for it. This gets back to my whole tangible/intangible argument, which all the music to the masses internet types seem to unconsciously possess. IE: They seem to think it's OK to steal albums and movies and whatnot over the internet because all they're doing is clicking a few buttons and they never have to experience the pain and loss the person their stealing from suffers. But these same people would never go out and swipe a car or lawn mower, because that would be wrong, it could land them in jail and they would have to physically experience the theft and its consequences. Holding these views is grossly hypocritical.