Making a copy of works were you haven't provided compensation in the exchange (assuming the artists are not giving it away) is copy right infringement.
The thing that worries me is that people think it's ok simply because it is easy to do. I have no idea of how that notion ever came about. I understand it is human nature to get product X for absolutely minimum effort or virtually no output of energy.
Again I have no problem with artists giving stuff away, that is THEIR prerogative, not yours. There are ALOT of artists that I buy from direct nowadays. There are also labels that are not some big shameless marketing machine and I would have never heard of an artist if if wasn't for them.
Speaking of iTunes, I have never purchased a digital download just because of DRM and lossy formats. There have been more than a few here that have found out exactly what hook they swallowed on that one.
There is one thing I worry about more than some nascent copying: The loss of first sale doctrine when everything is a digital download with DRM and licensing. That is the truly scary apparition of the future of media.
Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. Record companies and artists alike anticipate a net gain from x number of units produced, and despite whatever happens when it gets into the consumers grimy little hands, the original had to have been purchased at some point or another, and there is no significant loss incurred by simply recording an album onto a CD or what have you for personal enjoyment.
I find it hard to feel sympathetic or even altruistic when it comes to taking money away from most of the mainstream "artists", when all I have to do is turn on the TV and watch an episode of 'Cribs'. Trust me, they're not hurting.
Copyright infringement is a different animal - this implies you have taken property and/or works and intend to redistribute and resell it as your own, and for your own gain. Just because I like a certain band, and want to transfer their album to a CD and listen to it elsewhere, or give it to a friend who happens to like the same band, doesn't IMO imply any sort of copyright infringement - we're gaining nothing but enjoyment out of the artist's music.
Now, many smaller and independent record labels - that's a different story. This is the realm where you find the struggling musicians - the ones who are traveling from show to show in a busted up van, hoping to earn enough money from one show to pay for gas to make it to the next and somehow eat along the way. They produce a CD - this, as it happens to be, constitutes the majority of the music I listen to, and I will do everything I can to support them, and pay for everything I get from them. I was in such a band back in the day, so I have first hand knowledge of how it is.
Incidentally - it's been years since I have copied music for my own enjoyment anyway. I do download from the internet, from iTunes - yes, I agree DRM and lossy formats leave a lot to be desired, but I listen to most of my music while driving (where 128kbps M4A meets road noise meets an adequate aftermarket car stereo system) I have no problems with it, it's fine. I pay for everything I listen to, if it makes you feel any better.
But at the same time, in these modern times - how can you regulate the practice of copying the 1's and 0's once the original has been digitized and paid for, with all due royalties going to the artists involved? The fact is, you simply can't.
Then you have bands like Radiohead, NIN, and a few others mentioned - who have offered their latest recordings for free via download. I can respect that - when Radiohead came out with theirs, the deal was you could pay as much as you saw fit, or nothing at all, but you would still get the music. Revolutionary idea huh? Guess what - I STILL paid full price for the album - which via their download page equated to roughly 7.5 british pounds, as that was the currency used.
