Is it legal to download out of print music?

[ewok20t3]

Plugged-In takes the overly simplistic approach.  Surprise, surprise.

It's somewhat hypocritical for them to talk about how wrong it would be for someone to take someone else's drawing or painting and hang it in their house for free, when all they've done in this article is rehash things that I've read a million times before from other publications.

[bloop]

Well, an original thought is asking too much from them.  From time to time, though, they can come up with some sort of synthesis that makes a lick of sense.

[murlough23]

The problem is that any attempt to disprove their argument will just be met with accusations of this generation's moral ambiguity, followed by a hand-waving "slippery slope" argument. This type of thinking defends itself well against actual logic.

NP: "Around Us", Jónsi

[ajyouthguy]

Plugged-In takes the overly simplistic approach.  Surprise, surprise.

i basically ignore anything you post referencing plugged-in, not because i like them or agree with them, but because they could have the most amazing story ever and you'd blast them anyways.

[bloop]

Well, continue to do that then.  No, strike that, go ahead and ignore everything I write.  I really don't care, but this is demonstrably untrue.  I've praised a few of their articles in the past (here, for example), although I perhaps didn't clone the posts here.

Also, a few posts up, I indicated that from time to time they make sense.

Lastly, the form of your argument is fallacious.  It presumes too much.

[murlough23]

they could have the most amazing story ever

No they couldn't.

[NinjaRob17]

[Vlad!]

Plugged-In takes the overly simplistic approach.  Surprise, surprise.

What's sad is that it can be really hard to have an intelligent debate about this subject because so many people take this rhetoric (which is both logically and legally wrong!) at face value.

(Late reply is late).