Hairbndrckr: I think that your argument would probably convince a lot of people, but I don't think that it is fundamentally sound. Since when has the amount of profit that a company or person makes on a product had anything to do with whether we buy or steal it? Do you mean to say that you don't buy jewellery because of the 200% markup over actual cost? Or how about pizza? Someone in the business told me that there's a 500% markup - does this mean that we should find a way to get pizza without paying for it?

I do understand what you mean, though, that it doesn't seem fair that the record companies are the ones getting rich off of the whole deal. Still, Bill Gates is a billionaire, and yet, we don't expect Windows to be free.

Anyways, now you know my stance on the whole mp3 deal. I'm not against it in that I can check out a CD beforehand to see whether it's any good, or I can just get a couple of songs from a CD that I wouldn't want to own. However, if it was possible, I would gladly pay for those 1 or 2 songs...

With regards to the quality, it's true that it's poorer, but I think it's come a long way from when Napster was born. I remember that mp3s used to have the worst high ends (cymbals sounded like water splashes), but I haven't really noticed it in a while. And, if you listen to music on the radio, you probably realize that it's possible to enjoy music without pristine sound quality (although it is much more satisfying to listen to CD quality when it's absolutely cranked!).