What I am failing to understand in this entire argument is why people think that they have a "right" to hear all music that has been recorded. If your argument is that you wouldn't have bought it anyway, then why should you be able to hear it. The way most of society has (unfortunately) developed means that music, like most other things, is a commodity, and has a monetary value placed on it. People in the production chain generally expect something in return for their labor. If you aren't willing to pay that price, why should you hear it? Is it written in the constitution of some countries that we have the right to life, liberty and music? People have said (here, or in other places where this same discussion has taken place) that they would copy, but not buy, a disc because: - they don't know enough about the artist to know if they would like it. Then ask someone whose judgement you trust for a recommendation. - can't afford it (someone said that here). Well, there are lots of things I can't afford (a new car, my own house, a long vacation), etc. Does that mean we are entitled to them anyway? As for copying discs or making compilations for friends to try things out - why not just let them listen to it at your house? Or lend it to them? I lend discs to friends quite frequently that I think they would be interested in. They don't copy them; they keep them for a couple of days or weeks, or even longer depending on how much I trust them and whether I want it back quickly, listen to them, decide if they think it is worth owning or not. They lend me things that I buy or don't buy, or maybe buy something else by that artist. I really don't see the need for making compilations for friends.