[urklvt]

I agree with Ken. Besides, only fast food and cheap "restaurants" charge up front for the food. I pay for my meal AFTER I eat. If it's total and compete garbage I won't even finish it and I sure as hell won't pat for it, but if it was just bad but not life threatening, I'd be having a talk with the manager about the bill. The comparison to downloading music doesn't work.

If I download something and like it I will buy. I have far more CDs than I should for that reason. But if I don't like it I delete it. Also, having lived in Germany for several years, I have bought many "brand new" CDs that have been "sampled" in their entirety prior to my purchase. It never pissed me off. I got the music I wanted and the fact that it had been listed to before I got to it didn't make it any less enjoyable once it started playing in my car stereo.

In the case of books and magazines the paper is what's for sale, not the content, unfortunately. If it's on display and it's not shrink wrapped, well, I'll sample to my heart's content. How different would it be if I walked into a library and pulled a book off the shelf and read it without ever taking it out of the building? No one would even question me at all. Another invalid comparison.

I can understand why some companies, like Apple, would create proprietary formats for their music content. How else can you restrict content from leaking? However, the moment a product becomes readily available to the public the author's consent becomes irrelevant. The content can't exactly be retracted and the only thing the artist can hope for is the integrity of their fans.

You can not fault someone for having copies of someone's music any more than for having excerpts of someone's writing. It may be considered unethical, but unless it is being copied and sold for profit you're not dealing in true crime. Theft of the medium carries far more weight than "theft" of the media.