Sharing SACDs

Pretty funny how these threads turn out sometimes 

OP… “but if the person who made the copy for himself had no intention of ever purchasing the music, how does this become a loss to the artist?”

To me, this comment gets to the heart of the difference between a respectful society based on “doing the right thing” and respecting individuals… an ethical one, and a legalistic rule based society without ethics or respect. The latter, you creep up to the line without regard to doing the right thing or respect for others. So you take advantage of others, and it is ok, because you did not break the law. The law is a poor substitute for respect of others and the source of so much disrespect and conflict. 

Actually @ghdprentice, it was a question not a comment and it was a question concerning loss, not ethics.  The reason I ask is because the record industry, software developers and the media have a tendency of conflating the problem.

You have no argument from me concerning respect and ethics.  I just don't see how Adobe or AutoCAD are losing millions to pirated software by users who would never have bought the software in the first place.  I ask the same question for the artist, ethics aside.

Someone took the position in an earlier post saying he paid for the music and he can do whatever he wants with it.  He opposed being told what he can and can't do with a product he bought.  You could split hairs and say when a used LP or CD ends up in a garage sale, used music store or DisCogs, the artist is still getting ripped off because someone is still making money off their efforts, even on the used, second hand market.

All ripping is illegal.  Doesn't matter owner or anyone else.

I would add that I was around when cassette tapes and portable tape players were invented.  The record companies when crazy, even testifying before Congress how taping of music from the radio, or dubbing from records, would completely decimate and destroy the music industry.

LOL.