Which is why I'm not actually advocating illegal use of music on our soundtrack. In truth, though, the invention of the Internet logically forces a reevaluation of what piracy is, or maybe just a look at what we used to call it, and update from there. It was never considered piracy when you heard a song for free on the radio, or saw a show for free on TV, nor was it piracy if you taped it for review later. You were only paying whoever provided the device, not the actual owner of the media in question, yet nobody minded. So with the advent of the Internet, and websites like Youtube, nothing has really changed, except that now you can get what you want, when you want; you don't just have to wait for it to come on. Is that difference really enough to call it piracy? I think not. It really is more like piracy in the cases where a person uploads media who isn't the media's owner, but that is to be expected when the owner doesn't do the same thing first, and an increasing number of media owners do. Like I said, they should just ask for shares of a media website's profits, in return for allowing their media to be viewed for free. The said profits do exist now that Youtube is selling ad space.