> I've been using Napster
>since the beginning in Sept.,
>1999 and I've never been
>convinced of any "illegal" activity.
>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.

to my knowledge, taping something for SOMEONE ELSE is not part of the home recording exception. correct me if I'm wrong. and if your scenario above doesn't fall under the home recording exception and you don't have the copyright owner's permission to reproduce the work, it's copyright infringement, kikko.

> 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.

Well, Napster got millions in venture capital which they couldn't have gotten without helping people (through their service) get for free what they otherwise would have paid for. probably not bootlegging in its technical sense, but close enough for the word to be applied in conversational usage.

> 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.

and the ones who don't want Napster exposure are either (a) suing them or (b) going on record in interviews that they are anti-Napster (when asked about the issue).

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.

newspapers are not in the business of providing empirical data or statistically sound research, by and large (when they do cite studies, they are usually done by outside parties...when is the last time you heard a reporter say "According to a New York Times-sponsored study, data shows...").

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.

How do you explain artists like Dre, Outkast and Metallica saying "thanks but no thanks"? Among others...

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

With the permission of the copyright owners...an essential legal distinction.

> 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.

If only opinions won lawsuits, Napster would be fine. Ha.

Thoughtfully yours,

Spirit

http://www.mp3.com/miscellaneousflux - click for instant audio gratification

http://mp3.washingtonpost.com/bands/in_shallah.shtml
- b-boy soul music for the world to
uprock to...

http://mp3.washingtonpost.com/bands/miscellaneous_flux.shtml (Flux's "Sad Sunshine" is currently an editor's pick at http://www.washingtonpost.com/mp3)

"Quit acting like a bitch, 99.99999% of the people can see that you're an idiot." - OKP october33 ripping a hole in someone

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com