only one thing to say, and it it does not substantially affect the course
of the debate as it has emerged so far, BUT
many have pointed out that a recording which is out of print should be
"bootlegable", due to the fact that doing so can't possibly cost the record
company or the artist any money due to them. This isn't entirely true. If a
record is re-released, and you already know you don't like it ('cause
you've got a tape of it), or you don't like it enough to shell out for it,
or you're tired of it now, having played the bootleg so many times. Sure, a
collector is going to want the "original" (if a re-release may be so
called), but some of us just like music, and don't give a shit if it is on
FAX or World Ambient. So a bootleg can cost the record producers money,
even for out of print material.
That's All
"I've sung a lot of songs,
I've made some bad rhymes." Ray Charles
This message came from Matt.