Perhaps the most convincing rationalisation for why stealing music is acceptable is "I wouldn't have bought it anyway." "If I wouldn't have spent the money on the artist's album in the first place," the argument goes, "why is it a bad thing for me to take one or two songs? The artist isn't losing any money." This train of thought naturally extends to the further conclusion "Copying music isn't the same thing as theft, because nothing has been taken from the artist." While I won't argue with the latter, which hinges on the definition of theft and thus is technically accurate, the assertion that nothing is taken from the artist when you steal his or her music is patently false.

An artist spends time, energy and money to create his or her music. When someone steals that music instead of buying it, the artist has clearly lost the revenue from the potential sale. If however the person stealing the music would never have purchased it, there has been no monetary loss to the artist. Instead what the artist loses is more ephemeral: the value of both his or her labour and the product of that labour, the music, has been ignored. Stealing music which you wouldn't buy says in unequivocal terms that the artist's work has no value.

Two types of people exist: those who believe that work and effort have value and merit compensation and those who don't. A person who decides that work has no value—potentially a hypocrite (why exactly does his or her job pay him or her?)—is the type of person who does not donate when entering museums and art galleries and raises a fuss when asked to pay for a broken item in a fine china shop. When you download music which you wouldn't buy you place yourself squarely in the same group as the tightfisted museum goer.

It is important to decide what you believe is right. Keep in mind, though, that if you believe work has no value, what reason does anyone have to pay you for your work?