I can fully respect someone who simply doesn't wish to support an organization they don't like by not purchasing their items. One, however, is not morally just

I can fully respect someone who simply doesn't wish to support an organization they don't like by not purchasing their items. One, however, is not morally justified in then simply taking the items they are otherwise unwilling to pay for. The artists voluntarily agree to release their music through the RIAA. If you don't like the RIAA, but you like their music, you don't have a <i>right</i> to their music by virtue of the fact that you simply <i>want</i> it. This my beef with the comments. Regardless of the legality of it, redistributing an artists' work without their approval. Piracy is wrong, whether it's software or music. But a site like "TorrentFreak" is certainly going to be crawling with people who have absolutely no respect for property rights. A service like Spotify (with agreements with the record companies) is offering the music in a free-as-in-beer streaming service, which, although they're not MP3s, they are still free music in a much more highly customized format than radio broadcast (and even web listening services like last.fm), and that's a sign that the RIAA is at least willing to support modern services. But the pirates on TorrentFreak remain vehemently opposed to the free music on Spotify simply because they took the legal route of <i>working with the content producers</i>. This is why I am appalled (though not terriby surprised) by the comments on the article.