>Theft is not an acceptable alternative to what a consumer deems as >overpriced goods. Last time I checked, music wasn't a life staple, >and you could live just fine without it. You don't like the prices >the market has set? Don't buy the product. Yes, boycotts are the most effective tool consumers have to get corporate action. The "public" face of the corporate world is to downplay boycotts, but from working with a dozen or so Fortune 500 companies I can tell you that the word sends a panic through upper corporate management. The biggest reason is that even an unsuccessful boycott causes a certain amount of permanent loss of business. For example, there are a some people who still don't buy Chiquita bananas because of the role Chiquita played in supporting the El Salvador regime that murdered dozens of missionaries in the early 80s. Another reason boycotts instill fear in the corporate exec is that it directly affects the bottom line. This is the way to the music industry. It doesn't take a majority of consumers to make a significant dent in profits. Why boycott the music industry? Because they are just as wrong as those who steal. When one uses hyperbole in debate it is often humorous; but when one attempts (succeeds in) passing laws based on hyperbole, that is dangerous. RIAA et al basically say that ALL music sharing and peer-to-peer is evil and want it outlawed. As I stated previously, if I already have paid for a song view some other medium, but don't have the technology to make a digital copy (within the legal scope of copyright), then downloading that music is not stealing; it's convenience. So if we really want to affect change, boycott the music industry... or are we so addicted to music that we can't go 6 months without making a music purchase? -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Mike Bigley Maineville, Ohio http://www.norbertrunning.com Please support an American Indian Elder & Medicine Man by visiting the above link. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>