"Own Nothing. Be allowed to temporarily, borrow/use/have access, everything on our terms alone."

This saying appears to be a logical contradiction. Doesn't having something imply ownership of some kind?

If I say you can use my lawnmower whenever you want based on a monthly payment, would it really be true to say that you "have" it? Especially when it comes to something less tangible like streamed data. At least in the lawnmower case it can be at your place and you 'have' it there for a while, but this is not the case with music streaming services.

Can large scale music portability be seen in a similar revolutionary perspective as the printing press? Though this seems far reached, the printing press changed the way we get access to and consume reading material. Has portable digital audio technology not done the same to music?

I would say that yes it is the same, more than less. Whether or not these disconnects are bad or not is another question. Most often enrichment vs escapism tends to form a strong boundary for this.

This supports the argument that it is disruptive. Because we are defining disruptive as creating some form of significant change. Whether the change is good or bad it is still disrupting (changing) the situation.

Disruption and change can occur whether or not an individual wants to allow it to occur, at least on a social level. Individually we can choose whether or not to participate, but at this stage, whether or not an individual chooses to engage in the technology does not change the fact the the listening habits of the world around them have changed.

We have never had access to so much music in a portable form. This has resulted in different ways of listening and accessing music. We are so used to this form and it is so widespread now that we could never go back (nor want) to using portable music devices that are limited to the physical mediums (cd's or minidiscs) we can carry around. Our bar of what we will be satisfied with in terms of portable music has become irreversibly higher than it was.

Please see my argument for the obscurity of 'ownership' outside a legal and fiscal framework.

"stealing" is defined by the boundaries of ownership that we create. We need to consider whether or not it is suitable to consider the artist or the recording industry as "owning" the music. If we extend boundaries too far we are likely to all be able to fall under the accusations of theft. In the end ownership is generally defined based upon financial gains and positions, NOT logically thought out or derived senses of ownership from a more philosophical context. If you consider it from outside the fiscal framework you will struggle to be able to claim ownership to anything.

So are you agreeing? Saying that the record industry steals due to their greed form artists and therefore the downloaders and the industry will see each other in hell?