Okie, what the hell are you defending??? The cases you cite both allow for time for the maker to recoop the expense of developement and make a profit PRIOR to the making available in the public domain. OK, I got no beef. But that is not what the Napster issue is about. The Napster issue is about folks saying that they have a right to buy one CD and then copy it by means of the world wide net to as many people as they choose. What makes it different from the cassette tape example given is in the scope. Copying to tape is still stealing, but at least regionally, on campus, in towns, among friends, someone had to purchase the original. With the Internet, one copy on a harddrive becomes available to the entire world.

McGrath, that last paragraph just doesn't fly. Why the hell would anyone spend the $4,000 to $7,000 US it requires in the hopes that they get more bookings? And why would anyone purchase the CD at the live show if they knew they could go home and download it for free?

Come on boys, just admit it. You found a way to have all the music that you used to not be able to afford, or had to pay good money for and now you don't. You want something for nothing and are using specious and fallacious arguments to bolster your position. And the one area that you are ignoring is one of the first ones I raised. What about the folks like Folk Legacy and Camsco? OK, so you don't think you should have to pay the artist. I disagree and think you are stealing. What about those enterprises that provide hard to get material that we folkies love? What is the long term effect when they disappear? When you take what little profit motive they have left, which allows them to stay alive, who will do the field recordings?

Mick