I abhor theft, as you rightly point out in regards to the downloading services. My teenagers learned a lesson when I wiped their hard disks after I found tracks on their PCs from CDs they never purchased. I became a major evil in their lives, and the still think I'm looney.

Let me ask, the following questions, if I may?

Exactly for whom was digital audio developed?

I'd proffer that we, the consumer, was the target of the digital developemnt effort, which efforts predates the internet by quite a bit. Remember reading the following - that the digital development was intended to 'target the consumer'?
That it would provide the consumer 'lossless reproduction'? That the digital data could be stored for eternity on any medium? A service to humanity?

So, in my opinion, the consumer was supposed to be the recipient of this, ahem, 'gift' of digital encoding. Just as we were the target of analog grooves in vinyl, and magnetic poles on coated mylar... we, the consumers, were given the tools and the unrestricted ability to transcodde recorded works from one storage mediim to another. Thanks to the engineering developments of Ampeg, Akai, RCA Victor, Motorola, Zenith, and thousands of other industry giants, the consumer was the blessed recipient of science, and the industry grew.

Yet, today, the lossless reproduction benefit is being revoked, based on the financial losses of both the recording industry AND the artists. The companies that developed and prospered on the consumers revenues for audio recording and reproduction equipment are now focusing elsewhere, if they exist at all... yes, my floor model of Philco reel to reel has long since burned out, but the tapes still remain in my posession. The industry had clearly offered and benefited from a valuable service and I, the consumer, relied on it; it became 'grandfathered' ability to transport recordings to new media and as a consumer, I will seek to remain endowed with those same benefits, irrespective of industry manipulation of legislators. The developments were, after, refined for the benefit of the consumer and the industry which prospered from our collective wallets.

When LPs and CDs cost me anywhere from $0.80 to $1.60 per track, I was a bit incensed, as a consumer, when iTunes announced $0.90 per track - towards the low end of my indicated cost range, but that difference is not providing a realistic cost savings to me, the consumer, when you consider the lack of expenses for digitally distributed products - no cover photography, no printing, no jewel cases, shipping costs, and no media costs as well. Naturally, I'm wondering why the costs did not change in my favor... to somewhere around $0.40 per track or less. I really feel that the distribution channel needs to let go of the old ways, they can no longer justify placing themselves between consumer and artist, and since the production costs have severely decreased in recent yearts, the portion of cost formerly incurred by the (now obviated) distribution is no longer accepted by the consumer in any case - the costs are vastly reduced and we consumers know it.

Next, as an aspiring artist, I think about (although very lightly) the issue of rights. Right off the top, I read posts by and I also asked artists (in ampcasts forums) about their (other artists) opinions of rights. Many responses were along the lines of 'heck, I'd appreciate having my tracks get trafficked on p2p, I'd at least be getting exposure!'. And personally, I am willing to take the chance that if I were to create the next 'Cocaine' or 'Stairway to Heaven', I could care less if I got more than a DIME for the effort - I produce music for the joy and satisfaction, I rely on my daytime job for incomes. I believe I will always release anything under Creative Commons licenses. Further, as I recall the issues suffered by 'Boston' and 'Creedence Clearwater Revival', I can't see that having 'industry representation' is really at all about the consumer.

I'd like to think that the end result of the dawning of the digital era should have stayed on track with the initial focus, but clearly, 'loss of money' in this digital era has taken the benefits away from the consumer AS WELL AS the artists AND the distribution channels.

Next, with the advent of synthesis software, has come more tactics related to percieved 'loss of revenue' - acidized loops, DRM, etc. Sadly, as a consumer, I see only a shift in focus for revenue comptition, and do not see the common good of humanity ("What percentage of the world’s population is able to make music? ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.") being addressed. In your golf lingo, the golf balls are now trapezoidal, and can only be swatted by clubs that match the closed format of the trapezoidal golf ball. Umm, thanks, but for nothing.

Do I think that usiness has any 'business' in making a profit from consumers? Well, as an advocate of Open Source software you might think I'm going to say 'no', but I will say 'yes' because I see there is a major gap between software performance and artists goals. Make your money helping me the artist reach my other side, the consumer, with as much artistic product as I can handle. Make the software open, not closed, so I can use any loops; support FLAC, not just MP3, so I can address all users (the market is free to decide, not restricted), and lastly, do not defeat the initial promise of allowing me to PURCHASE music and transfer the product from cassette to CD to iPod to whatever comes next. For the remainder of my life, I HAVE already paid the artist AND the label AND the distribution channels for their works; don't make me pay a second time like you did to me when I tossed my LPs and replaced them with CDs. I didn;y like it then, and I still do not like it today.