Yes, that's the point. That is the same with streaming services - you have access to listen to the song, but if the artist pulls it from the service, you can't access it anymore.

Ye yeh, and then if the owners want to sell the house or demolish it, you got no home anymore. You don't own that, you just had permission to stay there a while.

Yeah! So the artist can submit their songs to as many people as possible, but without transferring ownership of their intellectual and physical property. So the fans can listen and enjoy, but not own it.

Streaming services provide a license to stream the music - you have access to listen to the songs, but you do not own anything about them. There is obviously no physical element that you own (like a CD), so technically you don't own it.

This slogan represents these streaming services - you can have access to everything, but technically own none of it.

They may be "fantastic tools", but do you think they're disruptive? Where's your argument for that, huh gurl?

"iPods are great" doesn't have anything to do with this debate. You're off ya chops mate.

I don't think we have the power to decide whether it's disruptive or not. If we're listening to an iPod in public, we're replacing the natural sounds around us with recordings, and it's disconnecting us from the real world; it is disruptive.

The iPod creates a division in reality. Whilst you're listening to your iPod on the bus, you're disconnecting from the world. This disconnect is disruptive to human existence. We didn't evolve to be distracted and isolated in this way.

What about murder then? That's illegal, and not because it's "about money".

The point that we are arguing is with ILLEGAL downloading - without the permission of the creator. If an artist puts up their song for free, then it is not illegal, hence not related to this argument. It seems that YOUR comparison makes little sense!