This isn't about causation but correlation. That the best fit to the number of downloads to number of CD's show that they rise together. That's all.

It isn't saying anything about *why*. There could be lots of reasons and they could be different for different people. But the FACT is that high downloading rates go with high purchase rates is proven.

The industry could say that without downloading, those people would have bought MORE music. However, it could be that they would buy less. For every reasonable argument for one side, there's a reasonable argument for the other.

What it DEFINITELY shows is that people aren't downloading INSTEAD of buying, but they are doing BOTH and that more downloading doesn't mean that individual is buying less.

This whole mess has arisen for one reason - there is no consensus on the morality of ownership of music.

On the one hand, musicians deserve to make money from their creativity, and new musicians need investment. Some will also argue that companies have a moral right to exploit musicians as they are simply selling a product, just like a car manufaturer.

On the other hand, many people simply don't accept the idea that the big music companies are either doing a very good job or have the right to control music in the way they do. Some will argue that music belongs to everyone and so should be free at the point of access in the same way that education and healthcare are.

Some feel that everyone should obey the law, no matter how they feel. Others believe that unjust rules should be broken to show how unjust they are.

Unfortunately, the world's governments don't want to get involved and are either not acting at all, or are going along with the big corporations without discussing the wider social impact of what is happening. Since the fall of the Soviet Union it has become really unfashionable to even talk about the idea that some things can belong to society as a whole, and this is really getting in the way of this debate.

P2P music not harming Canada

Thank god for that! I'll just sleep so well tonight.

But hang on, what about if that music is Marilyn Manson? Won't that harm all those Canadalanders? Won't they go running around in the snow killing each other?

I have a "proper" seperates Hi-Fi in my living room, and mp3 player is not a source option I would consider, down to the sound quality.

I download music, that I play on my computer, but when it comes to playing on my Hi-Fi (and also in my car really) I go out and buy the real deal on CD.

I must have 500+ REAL legal music CD's, and 25% of them or more have been purchased because I downloaded them on mp3 originally, liked the songs and decided to buy them on CD. If I had not first "tried before buying" these songs on mp3, then thats around 125 albums that I would't have bought!

Before I got my PC I used to listen to the radio occasionally, but was never motivated enough to spend money on CDs.

Since I've been downloading music, I've been to loads of gigs and bought a number of albums. Naturally part of this is down to getting older and having more disposable income, but having access to lots of music has been the real driving force in encouraging me to give money to the music industry.

I got into MP3s late in the game, probably late 2000 or early 2001, starting first with mp3.com and then AudioGalaxy, Limewire, Kazaa, and WinMX. Last year, I ripped all of my CDs onto my computer in .OGG format, and I organized all the files I downloaded from mp3.com into their own folders. That left the other-downloaded songs. I just counted, and of the music I've downloaded, I've gone out and purchased 133 CDs. I still have a lot left, but I buy them when I can afford to (and when the songs are actually available on CD [not out of print or never released on CD]). I'd go out and buy all the CDs to replace my downloads if money was no object. Unfortunately, money doesn't grow on trees. And since I don't listen to radio, the only CDs I buy are those to replace my downloads and others that Amazon "recommends".

Obviously you are not from the United States,

Americans are usually very surprised when they learn there are countries where (good) education and healthcare are free...

As for those that I didn't buy, they are NOT lost sales.

They're only lost sales if I would otherwise have bought them legitimately. Try before you buy is an attractive option and has caused me to buy some things that I otherwise wouldn't have. If I had to buy to try, I simply wouldn't, so no loss of revenue.

It's time that oxymoronic organisations like FACT realised that these downloads are not lost sales. They're free advertising. The FUD generated by these parasitic organisations is laughable and it's time they realised how pathetic they look.

I'm more than happy for artists to be paid for their work (if it's worth it). I'm simply not prepared to continue to line the pockets of these unnecessary middle men in suits, at the expense of both the artist and the consumer.

Go Canada!

I already have on a CD somewhere, but either I can't be bothered finding the CD, I want the track on my PC/MP3 player or the CD is scratched beyond repair. I got into file sharing when Kazaa ruled the world and used to download dance tracks I heard when I went out, or singles on the radio that I liked. After that I would pick up compilation CDs (mostly) that had the above on, along with other tracks I liked. I rarely bought artist albums in those days, as I found that a lot of albums I bought ended up either completely different to what I expected from the singles, or plain crap.

Since I have accumulated most of the classic albums I've wanted over the years, and collections of tracks I want, I mostly only download tracks if I can't be bothered finding the CD really, and I now know better what albums I want (and I think that albums are a lot better than in the early 2000s/end of the 90s), but some of this is to tried and tested.

The answer is FLAC (the Free Lossless Audio Codec, for the uninitiated). If one were so inclined, once could keep ones music collection in FLAC and translate as required to MP3 or OGG (e.g. for portable players). Getting around the sound quality restrictions inherent in using cheap and nasty sound cards and cables, and finding space for all those fairly chunky FLAC files, would just involve a bit of hardware investment.

So one could download FLAC files, which are catching on, or rip borrowed CDs to FLAC, for example, rather than buying and maintaining a CD collection.

If one were so inclined.

"It's time that oxymoronic organisations like FACT realised that these downloads are not lost sales."

I'm sure they already do.

But they can't ADMIT to it because the real purpose of both FACT and RIAA is not to collect royalties, but to keep the FACT and RIAA bosses in business.

FACT and RIAA both need people to carry on breaking the laws of their various countries, because without them FACT and RIAA would have no reason to exist. And therefore they need those cumbersome download restrictions, even if it can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the musicians on whose behalf they CLAIM to be collecting would actually benefit from abolishing wholly obsolete distribution channels and going over entirely to downloads.

If we abolished all the big record companies along with FACT and RIAA, and every artiste set up their own download site at 10 cents per track, the artistes would probably make more than they currently do. Which would be to the benefit of artistes and public alike.