>> It's the trading from one person to another: just like when I
>> let one of my boys record off my stereo or when you record on
>> a VCR--the only difference being that this on a computer.

couple of issues here... letting somebody tape from your stereo and recording on a vcr are both examples of time-shifting, protected by the Sony vs. Betamax decision of 1984. Time shifting for non-commercial purposes is accepted in reference to the 'fair use' doctrine

>> It seems to me that it's the rapid progression of the
>> internet that has the "artists" scared more than anything:
>> the assume that if a kid can go on a computer and steal a
>> person's credit card number and unleash all of these damn e-
>> mail viruses, then what is to be said for thier money ?
>> Technophobia has run rampant and it's only natural for people
>> in all industries to be scared.

i agree in some respects, but many artists are looking for an alternative ways to control their own ish... the reason they don't go for online publishing isn't because of the piracy itself... but rather the inability to afford to control their ish. They already knows what it means to not have control over their work because the record companies have been taking their rights for a long time. To not have the rights of distribution and not have the protection of the record companies would be murder. When people go to court to fight napster, is it the artists paying for the lawyers? nope - it's the companies representing these artists. The money machine isn't in the favor of the artists, it's in the favor of the copyright holders with a monopoly on the production and distribution and a identified illegal price gouging, which is also the companies who force artists to give up the rights to their works. (and subsequently charge about $17 for a product that costs less than a quarter to produce in the quantities that they produce)

>> It makes no sense to call it "boot-legging" when they aren't
>> making money off exchange (although the recent partnership
>> with BMG will inevitably change that.

Their argument is not the act of selling, but consumers not buying. RIAA's argument is that Napster is (in it's illegal context, not the legal usages) an example of vicarious infringement. Similar to being an accomplice to a murder - not actually pulling the trigger, but knowing that some illegal stuff happened and not doing anything about it.

>> I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY AGREE that an artist should be compensated
>> for their work BUT, there are a lot of artists out there who
>> would kill just to have their work seen/heard/experienced,
>> let alone be paid for it. Plus, there is THE INDISPUTABLE
>> FACT (which you can find in any news source from CNN to your
>> local paper) that there has been No Significant Change in
>> music sales since the creation of Napster or its countless
>> clones. Both of the two afformentioned facts are why artists
>> like Chuck D, Limp Bizkit and Offspring are embracing
>> Napster: it has exposed their music to more people and
>> expanded thier fanbase significantly without hurting thier
>> record sales--increasing said sales, in fact.

the fact is, you've identified artists... not copyright holders. most artists give less than a damn because most artists make their real money off of tours and concerts, not albums. The record company makes very little money on artist tours as opposed to cd's. Record companies support touring because it grows a fan following that ensures success of future works by that artist. the same way that record companies want to boost popularity through tours with little compensation, many artists believe that distributing music online (free or very cheaply) builds a fanbase that allows them to tour successfully, which is where they make their real money.

>> By the way, doesn't THE RADIO give away music for free on a
>> 24/7 basis?

Free for who? Record companies and artist budgets pay for radio time... do you think that $17 is just a random price. Most of it is artificial inflation, but some of it goes to promotion. When a budget pays for promotion and the artist has to pay it back, do you think $25 for a show instead of $15 or $20 means that nobody is paying for the radio? Also, would commercial sponsors buy commercials if it wasn't a proven source of promotion. an hour of radio usually has between 15 and 30 minutes of commercials. When we go to the record store or party that we heard on the commercial, we are paying for the product and the promotion. I'm not saying anything is wrong with this, but that's what we're paying for. That's how it is.

>> It's not about being any "Robin Hood", it's merely about
>> finding people with whom you share musical tastes and
>> interacting with them.....sorta like O.K.P itself. But like
>> I said, this is just one man's opinon.

I appreciate your opinion, and shared the same opinion before I took a digital media rights course that gave alot of the basis and viewpoint that allows me to be a decent devil's advocate... but when all is said and done, some people rationalize their actions to seem non-criminal, some see their criminal actions not needing to be rationalized. The same basic thoughts are shared, just a different perspective.


- Mycrafon -

a FATE is a FEAT waiting to happen, but only if we change our ways of thinking