To Lisa71, Robvox, and starsforu2:
For Lisa71's sake please consider this a friendly discussion not a debate, despite the strident tone taken by some posters.
First, if you re-read my original post, my response was to the concept of "feeling bad" for the band. Irrespective of whether or not we think stealing $10 from 4 multi-millionaires is an ethical thing to do, there's certainly no need to feel bad for U2!
Second, does it matter a damn whether anyone thinks I'm a "real fan" or whether anyone thinks I know right from wrong? Of course not. I'm not offended because I know some people feel very strongly about these issues, but I think there are more effective and more collegial ways to express one's opinions.
Third, for the record (and the authorities!), I don't download at all, legally or illegally - but not because I don't think it's ethical.
Now to the more interesting issue: is free downloading "wrong"? I don't think it's as black-and-white as others seem to believe.
If one accepts the basic premises that underlie piracy laws, then one is certainly bound to consider unauthorized downloading a form of stealing like Lisa71's Wallmart analogy.
But I don't accept these premises.
1. I don't think the government should be able to limit my right to use my personal property (computer, tape recorder, Xerox machine) to copy music because IT DOESN'T HARM ANYONE. The only "harm" is to the profitability of a multi-million dollar record company - but that shouldn't trump my right to use my personal property as I please, with the exception of areas which might threaten the well-being of others. For example, we certainly should be willing to accept limits on our right to copy classified government info or private medical records. But music? Get real.
2. I don't think record companies should be allowed to possess exclusive music copyrights. Music is released into the atmosphere (or cybersphere), a PUBLIC SPACE. Even if U2 agrees to give exclusive album rights to one company to guarantee its own profits, that DOES NOT mean that I consented to give up my rights to do as I please with my property and with information released into a public space. If I yell out a great stock tip in the street, can I use government authority to stop others from writing it down because that might interfere with my "right" to make millions? Hell no, and correctly so.
3. Does society really have a legitimate interest in protecting record company profits at the expense of citizens' rights? In the past, perhaps. In the case of modern record companies, I'd say no. In the current era of massive media consolidation where 99% of artists have no negotiating leverage whatsoever, artists are forced to cede total control over their artistic production to publicize their work. That's not fair to the artists to begin with. Furthermore, in the past record companies benefited society somewhat by financially supporting the development of promising talent into outstanding musicians (e.g. U2). Nowdays, companies have found it more cost-effective to forego this development process and instead promote weak talent that is marketable (i.e. sexy and willing to dance half-naked in the video). This does not benefit society, and by doing so I think they have forfeited any "special consideration" given previously.
In the case of artists' profits, I think I would be willing to cede my rights under certain conditions: 1) the profits go to the artists not to mega-media companies; 2) the artists provide a mechanism to permit poorer folks to access the music paying less; and 3) a certain percentage of profits go toward developing promising talent into outstanding musicians. That would benefit society and ensure that artists profit reasonably from their work.
But under current conditions, the legal system is wrong in disallowing us from downloading music released into the public sphere.