The infamous Tom Vendetta has recently joined the Flock community, contributing some bug reports and being a pleasant participant on IRC.
Last night during the hours when the #flock channel is generally quite, he wrote:
(21:11:01) http://tomtothevendetta.blogspot.com/2006/05/no-need-for-record-labels-thanks-to.html
(21:11:12) watch that music video, its graet.
(21:11:14) great*
The video he is referring to is the music video for MC Lars: Download This Song
The video is a lot of fun, and I agree with a lot of Tom’s commentary. Though I will suggest that martyrdom can lead to “a chance to become big and earn tons of money”.
What I don’t agree with is the lyrics:
You know,we just wanted a level playing field.
You’ve overcharged us for music for years, and now we’re
Just trying to find a fair balance. I hate to say it, but…
Welcome to the future.
Stealing is wrong, even from the RIAA.
I have a hard time being passionate about F’ing the RIAA. We love to piss on the rest of the world about the righteousness of the free market, but whine when it hurts us as consumers. If you don’t like the rules than don’t use their property.
I can be passionate when it is framed instead of f’ing something, considering and celebrating the alternatives. Though here, my local resource, Chris Messina is still a little violent in his message 
If the RIAA don’t appreciate what you think is fair use, move on, leave them behind.
I will say though I think RIAA’s response are worse than people stealing from the RIAA, but it still does not justify stealing.
Stealing from one to give to another is never morally justifiable unless the rules of stealing are rewritten by those being stolen from.
By that I mean that I’m perfectly happy to pay my money to someone who provides me with something of value — and by that, I mean the artists who create and perform music. I understand that there was once a great need for spreading music around — and widening audiences — but now the funnel has inverted and I have more choice than ever — and less expensive means of finding and consuming music.
This reality must be embraced, not legislated out of existence.
Additionally, the problem with legislating away the problem is that it’s a way of cheating free market economies — of rewriting the laws of theft after the theft has happened (witness the fall and revival of Napster).
If it’s about control and control of digital property — what I’m paying for these days in buying a DRM’d MP3 is actually not access to the music, but a limited license to have a digital player interpret the digital bits of the file and spit out sound.
But what I want is the music — on *any* device that I possess… and I want to be able to freely share it with my friends. If the reality is that I have 600 friends, who’s to put a limit on that? Rather than f*king your customers, there are better alternatives to pursue — and the easiest or most obvious answer just isn’t always the best (see CC-licensing and Magnatune for viable alternatives).
My attitude is only as violent as it needs be; and the RIAA, I dare say, is much more beligerent against than I could ever become.
Wow, very thoughtful response Chris.
The part that makes me mad about the RIAA is that they are screwing over all the consumers. They try to limit how we use our music. The fact that they use their money to influence the government and then sue their consumers to get that money back just sends me off the wall.
They are trying to limit us in every aspect possible, sooner or later it will be so bad that we have to buy a different format for every song. We will be paying $0.99 to put a song on our ipod, then we will be paying another $0.99 to put it on our computer. Not to mention another $0.99 to put the same song, onto our cellphone or radio.
Copyright violation isn’t stealing (insert insult).
Whether or not copyright violation is “wrong” is much more debatable. I’m not saying it isn’t, just that the whole thing isn’t as clear cut as you seem to think it is. And thanks to the likes of the RIAA, copyright today is a hideous deformation of its original intentions, so who’s to say?
I would define stealing as taking into my possession something that I do not have the legal right to. Sharing of something that I do not have a right to share is also theft.
Tom, it is within their rights to limit how you use their work, just as it is in your rights to limit how I use your comments.
This is clear cut. Henry feel free to provide an example related to sharing RIAA protected things where it is not, or where copyright violation of it is not. They have asked me not to, which should be good enough. The law also protects their, my and your rights.
We are not talking here about stealing and sharing for for my health or the health of others: food, shelter, clothing, medical, and basic quality of life.
If I don’t like the law, I should work to have it changed, but I cannot justify stealing recreational things when there are alternatives.
Your definition of theft is wrong. The law sees copyright infringement as completely separate to theft. In some states it’s actually a tort, not a crime. Theft is wrongfully *taking* someone else’s property. That’s *take*, not “take into your possession”, which is a deliberately ambiguous phrase. When you steal something, you deprive the victim of it.
Copyright infringement violates an author’s exclusive rights over the reproduction of his/her work, whereas stealing is a violation of more fundamental laws of possession. Possession is a primal concept, one that even my dog understands. Copyright is a legal construct intended to provide an incentive to create.
Oh, I just realised I left a lot out of my last comment. You’re completely right about celebrating the alternatives instead of focusing on hating the RIAA. My point about it not being ‘clear cut’ was because very few people would support stealing, but there is a real body of people who are against the very idea of copyright. Again, I don’t necessarily agree with them, but there are definitely two sides to the thing.
Hi Henry, I am very glad that you followed up! Both of your two newest comments add important context, and your insights are invaluable.
My brother is a law school graduate as are a surprising number of other people in my life. The language I use is on purpose, and not meant to deceive.
I have a moral obligation to acknowledge and respect someone else’s choice even if I disagree with it.
It is clear cut. The choice here is easy. I have alternatives and influence within the existing system.
It’s definitely clear cut in many ways. Artists that sign up to RIAA labels agree to their terms. They created the work, and that means that they get to decide what should happen to it.
But is this MC Lars guy promoting illegal copying, or is he promoting stuff like iTunes? The way he refers to overcharging, “the new artist model”, “running your label like it’s 1992″, and a “fair balance” seems to point to that rather than a copyright-free anarchy. Also he coined the term ‘iGeneration’ (people born in the mid/late 80s), so it sounds quite likely.
The link in my name is to my absolute favourite ‘alternative’, calabashmusic.
Wow, Calabash Music is amazing! I listened to some great tracks. I will recommend this to others.
My post is not really for artists because I do not really know as I am only a consumer. Though from what I have been told first hand iTunes is not really an option for independent labels. It is a long process of waiting.
My post is also not really about or against MC Lars, other than that his complaint and rebellion is a popular one. I am certain I am not misinterpreting the message of that song, ” What if I can get it from my sister for free?” It is a song in the voice of the consumer explaining and justifying our actions.
iTunes does not try to address any of these issues either. If you believe that we have been “overcharged [...] for music for years”, most people will not be saving money, and the money their spending is still mostly going into the pockets of the RIAA. If you believe that you should be allowed to share, iTunes is not helping that either.
Heh, you have a point there. A dollar per song doesn’t add up to much less than conventional CD prices. I don’t really know why I went with them as an example, especially since I’ve never even used iTMS.