>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.

The "artists" aren't getting paid for the copies I'm making at home, but it's perfectly legal to record. Isn't that what blank tapes are for ? The only difference is that the "blank tapes" (in this case, the computers of Napster users) are faster and much more efficient....and what does "kikko" mean ?

>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.

If that were what defines "boot-legging" that 3/4 of the "legal" businesses in this country alone would be called boot-leggers. The money that Napster made is from selling thier user info with advertisers (the one thing that I've never approved of from them) and selling the company itself in early 2000, not from the content itself.

>> 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).

The former of whom have more than enough exposure and financial backing to do so and more, the latter--well that's on them as to how they want to be known. Personally, the only people I've heard say the latter are those with a lot of clout already, but ofcourse I haven't heard EVERY comment on the subject.

>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...").

And on that same token, there is no "concrete" proof that Napster has "damaged" record sales. Most of the backlash has been pure and simple fear of a drop in record sales, which has evidently not happened yet.

> 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...

As I said, these are folks who already have enough clout and cash to say so. Plus there's the fact that in the end, Napster is a trading service between one person to another. Whatever music one person brings to it is on them; if the RIAA wants to try to go into 20 million homes and see if people are recording in an "approvalable" way, then they're fooling themselves.

>> 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.

And the people who record off the radio ?

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

Like I said: that's just my opinion; whether I'm right or wrong--in this case--is just another opinion. I don't pretend to know all the answers (hell, I don't know any). I'm sure QuestOn4--who has made it his duty to remind me so since we were both on the Boondocks board--will tell you that my opinion doesn't count for shit anywhere, including here.

If my opinion counted then the one indisputable form of financial and creative raping would not have happened: I'm talking of how George Clinton lost the rights to ALL of his Parlaiment music last week, including, but not limited to a huge number of rappers and R&B singers that sampled his tracks without acknowledgement or payment of royalties--that was fucked up. Now THAT is an example of a true artist not getting the compensation they deserve. Personally, I think it's worlds apart from what's going on with Napster, but that's just my 2 cents.

Y'all do read my quotes, right?
-----------------------------------------------------
Well, y'all, it's like my gran-daddy used to say:

"If you don't start no jivin' an' shuckin', I won't have t' start no shootin' an' cuttin' !"
------------------------------------------------
"Knowing others is intelligence, knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength, mastering yourself is true power."

--first stanza of the 33rd poem in the Tao te Ching