Just me again, hoping that no-one flames me for starting a thread that has been dealt with. And this one, well, you just know it has been dealt with.

Morality is a choice of words bound to cause a fuss, but not using it in it's fundamentalist sense, I want to clarify that I am using it to infer that there is good to be found in something, not that it is 'right' or that the opposite is 'wrong'.

I see people posting that even people who share child porn have a 'right to use of technologies'. Well I don't personally agree with this. Free speech? I would prefer free intelligence.

...That all this 'free' speech had not flooded the world with pornography. I downloaded a bunch, I watched a bunch, I saved a bunch, but at the end of the day, there is too much of it, of poor taste, and one has to wonder where it's rightful place in the human mind is or ... at our kids fingertips. Hey a kid is just a person so it's silly to say what's bad for kids is ok for adults except for the fact that... we still worry about them.

I am going to move right along to my point and the other end of the spectrum.

Freebird. What? I was listening to frickin Freebird one night last week, and I thought, 'what a great chord progression' .. and looked up the chords. Two nights later on chat, my mate Mike says out of the blue 'I've been listening to Freebird lately; great chord progression".

Flash. So I thought, you know, if someone listened to something and was moved, or soothed, in a psychologically therapeutic way, that is a god thing. So if we as P2P people share what we think will do some good, be it Dub music or Classical or the Clash, then that is a good. But is it right, or moral?

Well in my warm-melted freebird state I reasoned thus:

It is not possible for every human to purchase every piece of recorded music ever made. Nevertheless he should have access to seek and find that which is good for him. Compare it to art like sculpture or painting. The artist wants his work to be admired, and well he wants to get paid. Maybe rich people buy the works and they go to museums. Still not everyone gets to see everything, but the art deserves to be appreciated. With a recording, like other art, an individual can and will decide that he likes something so much that he wishes to purchase it for his private collection.

Perhaps radio stations have been the imperfect vehicles for people to sample music in this way. But unfortunately, lots of radio stations are more interested in the same old sh*t or the newest .... offerings. But P2P is at least an oppurtunity, while it lasts, to make available things that may have a positive impact.

Hold on, all you Maverick P2P-ers. I am not making a justification of what technically is held to be illegalistic... copyright infringement or ... whatever, these legal constraints that do not take into consideration such cases of sublime transformation such as in my Freebird scenario.

I mean that there can be found a good in it, which I suppose you would say is a moral virtue, and as long as P2P is around, those that consider this have the opportunity to Care what you Share, and think of what you are contributing. Now what conclusions you make as to what that may be are up to you.

Please excuse the rather long post, just MHO.

Peace!