Music for practice?

[Guest guest]

oh this is an interesting subject for debate, but

can I add that really it's not much different from

taping a CD from a friend--and there is nothing illegal

with such reproduction for personal use only. Same

with taping from the radio. Everytime we purchace a

blank cassette, CDR, or other recordable media, there

is a special tax to offset royalty losses. At least

that's the case in the US and Canada. Also, an MP3 is

really not of the same quality as CD, even when ripped

at highest bitrate. We who have CD burners can burn

directly a CD to CDR. We can even scan in the album cover

and reproduce the artwork (not that I'd ever do such

a vile thing)---making Napster seem trivial in its

wrongness.

[Guest guest]

oh--p.s. this issue is useless now, because Napster has agreed to appease the

recording industry by charging a reasonable subscription fee of around $5 a

month.

[Guest guest]

great sun, i go to all that work to try and stir

up a little controversy and now, poof, its gone. ok

fine, now you can come up with something that will

stimulate the lurksters out there to provide fodder to keep

us away from more gainful activity. <br>how about

movies? i remember in yoga mala that guruji states that

attending movies is counterproductive to a yogic life

style. and yet, in one of the david swenson articles, i

think the one linked from alan little's site, swenson

states that he used to take sharath and his sister to

the movies all the time back when they were just

little yogi wannabes. so, waddya think: theatre, good or

bad? <br>hmmm, pretty lame. well, it's your turn

anyway. i guess we could always return to the tried and

true posting stimulants: sex and booze

[Guest guest]

Not so fast to nix the Napster controversy. If

Napster settled (which I was suggesting was the right

resolution), we still don't have unanimity on private taping

of cassettes or movies -- basically the same

question, only simplified (in a way). Some seem to say it

is stealing; others (myself included) seem to think

it's not. (see post #5130). <br>I take your point that

IF it's stealing then it really doesn't matter if

it's stealing from a big company or a poor starving

artist. I was thinking that the thing might depend on

whether you think that copyright is just a legal right or

a moral one. <br>But the nature of copyright is

that the thing gets published subject to a complicated

legal system for enforcing (to a limited extent,

really) a "copyright" which in practice is really only a

legal fiction anyway. So, if the reality is that you

can copy it on your cassette player, and that under

the existing system that is not a violation (either

because it's "fair use"; or, because such occurences are

accounted for in the existing pricing scheme), then it's

not stealing. Or, am I just completely

amoral?<br><br>I also like the movie question. Why are movies bad?

Is it that is takes you away from the here and now,

or what?

[Guest guest]

I agree. Fair use would include copying on your

tape player for your own enjoyment. Copyright

infringement would be if you took those copied tapes and sold

them for profit.<br><br>Napster IMO crosses the line

outside of fair use.

[Guest guest]

screwgee, how do you reach this conclusion of

Napster crossing the line? There is no profit to be made

for anybody involved in file sharing. Unless someone

managed to sell a CD they burned from songs they

downloaded from Napster, which is highly unlikely. Napster

is just free software that provides a way for

consumers to trade and share digital song files. In what

way does this differ from copying on your tape player

for personal use?

[Guest guest]

how does napster cross the line? well maybe they

don't. their actions are a new form of activity that

requires interpretation by the courts. that decision will

likely come down to the courts impression of the

company's intent. the people who are crossing the line are

those who knowingly acuire and trade songs that have

been copywrited. that is not a 'new' activity that

requires any sort of create interpretation of laws or

enactment of new ones. napster may or may not be guilty of

abetting that action.<br><br><<there is no profit to

be made...>><br>well, that's questionable too.

if you have a highly popular site, be it for legal

activity or illegal activity, you're going to have no

problem reaping advertising dollars at the very

least--witness the original efforts of the on-line gambling

sites. at one time illegal, now maybe not, but

profitable from day one. i don't think napster uses any

advertising, but it's been a while since i tried it.<br>maybe

a different way of looking at what napster has done

to potentially make themselves a profitable

entity:<br>in the movies, when gangsters want to make money

from local businesses, they charge them 'protection'

fees: pay us and we'll quit harming you.<br>more

germaine than whether the site or traders are making money

is whether the artists, studios, producers and media

moguls are losing money--what is commonly known as

'being robbed'.<br>in a round about way, the napsterites

are making money. they are getting a product with a

tangible market value for free. that is income

preserved.<br><br>i'm not in any way familiar with copyright issues,

but my understanding of the 'fair use' application is

that the allowable replication of copyrighted material

does not include making copies for trading or sharing

with others. it means making a copy for personal use,

period.<br><br>so anyway sunshine, how are you liking the cable

access? you were worried about the reliability of the

provider for a while. kind of hard to imagine going back

to the old slow dial up isn't it

[Guest guest]

John, you said it, cable rocks! When we

downloaded our first legal song (from an indie artist on

MP3.com) it came in 10-15 seconds. Finally we can stream

internet audio and video without rebuffering.<br><br>As

for the Napster argument, I still think it's all

personal use. Furthermore, stats (for whatever stats are

worth) show that Napster users not only buy more music

than their non-user counterparts, but that sales have

increased during, and possibly because of, its use. It is

really a way of test-driving music. I also see the

benefit as a blues lover, because old and rare blues are

impossible to find in stores. Many of these songs like old

Willie Dixon, etc. are no longer in circulation or

unavailable in most stores. Anyway, why is it that the most

outspoken opponents of Napster are very successful artists

while the lesser-known and less wealthy ones are open

to the potentials of the service? Not that it

matters...I suppose we are stretching the law and morality by

doing it. But if I tape the Simpsons and lend the tape

to a friend, am I committing a crime too? Remember,

there is a hidden surcharge on blank recordable media.

Anyway, it's already certain that the company will stay

alive by charging a service fee to offset royalty

losses. Seems reasonable.<br><br>P.S. Determine the

intent of the company--si that like determining the

intent of a voter? Oye vey!

[Guest guest]

Why are the ones who complain about Napster the

big name artists? Because they are the ones who stand

to lose the most(the record companies complain even

more). <br>Since you say that you "suppose we are

stretching the law and morality", why shouldn't I count you

as agreeing with those who believe that you are also

violating the "nonstealing" rule? (After all, the whole

yama and niyama thing is about NOT "stretching" the

rules, right?)

[Guest guest]

rules often work best when they are stretched. I don't think file sharing is

stealing. Why is it any different from taping a CD? But I like hearing both

sides of the issue.