Just returned from Thanksgiving holidays yesterday and am getting caught up. Hence my delay in responding.

Let me begin first with my friend Jim, otherwise known as Gutbucketeer. You know me, at least a bit. My reaction is not knee jerk, it has been consistent and is well thought out.

To the unnamed GUEST. There is a fundamental difference between taking a lyric off a site such as the Digitrad. It is not the singing or reprinting of lyrics that is theft. Those are put out there by artists for people to learn and sing. I know of no artist who objects to another singing there song, nor is there legal precedent to prohibit that. The sharing of lyrics, in most cases, is legal. And in those cases where it is not, Digitrad has removed the lyrics, as have others. And even in those cases where they have, I can usually go to the website and get the lyrics and these are posted by the authors/copyright holders. Where the line would be crossed is if I did something that was done for the sole purpose of beating the artist out of legally and morally owed compensation. On my own CD there are many songs by others. In each case we compensated by getting a license; or by direct payment; or in the case of not being able to find the person, we put the money in an interest bearing account as escrow until we find the appropriate person. That is the honorable thing to do. I know that that term bothers some folks but I don't care. Merely taking the lyrics to sing is not considered theft. It is the act of taking something that rightfully should be paid for, and using a system to get around that.

Now, as to the assertion that it is alright to take a song or two from big business. I have two problems with that. The first is that it could be used in almost any situation to justify theft. What you are saying is that stealing has to do with scale. So, in your opinion, stealing a Ford is OK? Theft is theft. If you are doing it to make a statement, fine. Just be prepared for the consequences. I have done this. In my life I have made the decision to break laws in pursuit of a point that I was making as an activist in a number of different causes. But I never alibi'ed that. I called it for what it was. And I paid the price later. The second problem I have with this attitude that it is OK to steal from business because they rip us off, is that it lumps all business into the same boat. Camsco, Folk Legacy, and most labels that record the music we love, are not ripping us off. They usually can barely make enough to stay in business. Independent artists, like myself, will invest $4,500 to $10,000 US to produce a CD. Marketing them at $15.00 a copy barely allows us to recoup our cost, when you factor in our time spent in production, studio artists, etc.

As to downloading obscure stuff that Jim says isn't available, fair enough. IF what you say is true, then you aren't ripping anybody off, because no one has a financial stake. But that is a big IF. I would bet that at least some of what you say is not otherwise available, is available somewhere.

As to Sandy Maclean's contention about Woody, I would say this. Yes, it is true Woody said this. Fair enough, as that was his right. That is the point. The artist has the right to control his/her own work. And I would bet you money that Woody's attitude wouldn't be the same today as it was then. He didn't live in the age when it was so easy.

The GUEST intimated that it is the same as when the cassette was supposed to destroy the industry. True enough, but there is a fundamental difference. One person might make 10 copies. They couldn't put it on a server and have the whole world copy it. This is a much different threat. And the old way was just as wrong.

One person said that they didn't feel they were stealing by making a copy for the car. They are right. It isn't about copying. I copy my CD's so I am not taking the original. The fundamental wrong occurs when you do that to avoid paying. Like copying for a friend. I am entitled to copy my CD's for my use. I am not entitled to copy it and give it to someone. I can give them my original, that is OK. It is just a gift. But to make a copy to avoid paying is theft.

Annahootz, it is stealing unless the performer agrees to the posting. I am not begrudging that. You are holding the artist to your standard for the dissemination of his/her work. I understand your point, but it isn't yours to make. You don't have the right to say what is good for me. Nor do you have the right to copy someone elses property without their permission. Is that so hard to understand?

Two final points. The first is directed at Clinton. He is the only person that has ever admitted that he does it to get something for nothing. That has been my standard challenge in this debate. All of your attempts to justify the theft of this music is obfuscation. You just don't want to admit that you are taking something that you should be paying for. You come up with all these justifications for your illicit and illegal actions. I would have much more respect, as I do for Clinton, if you would just own up to why you do it instead of all these grand attempts at making it right. It isn't. By the way, Clinton (you asshole.........inside joke there, folks, between Clinton and I), it is my turn to buy.

Finally, those that think I am on a high horse, I would suggest to you that you simply can't take plain talk, and a sense of ethics. I can't help what you think of me, but you may trust that I will call it as I see it. If you knew me, you would know that I attempt to live to a code. I am not always successful, but I will still continue to try. If you cannot deal with that, I would suggest that that is yours to deal with.

Mick