OFF: Copying / Napster

[Richard Lockwood]

I justify taping / copying in the following way.

1.  Something like the tape swap on this list I have no problem with, as it
acts as a sampler for other people - I've certainly gone out and bought
stuff by acts I'd never heard before I got a track on those tapes.
2.  Taping a whole album - I have no problem with if I can't get hold of a
'legit' copy.  If I lend a copy of a rare album I've got to a friend who
wants to copy it, fine, but I hope if he saw a copy in Tower Records a
couple of weeks later he'd buy a copy.
3.  Live recording - fine, if those recordings aren't commercially
available.  If I tape a gig, and some years later it gets an official
release, I'd like to think I'd go out and buy it (if it was any good!).

It's bootlegging / copying for profit / pirating that pisses me off.

Cheers,

Rich.

ObMellowCD - Heart - Dreamboat Annie  (Keeping my head down now!)
----- Original Message -----
From: <DASLUD at AOL.COM>
To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.SPC.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: OFF: Napster in the news


> In a message dated 4/18/00 5:46:29 AM, fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK writes:
>
> <<
> Is there some reason why rock musicians shouldn't be paid for their
> work, whatever its artistic merits?
>  >>
> ======
> that was not of which i wrote.
> i wasnt expecting such _posturing_ from a member of metallica.
>
> any guesses as to what they "lost" via napster?
> wanna count it in pennies?
>
> "<>"


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com