Comments on: Stealing is wrong, even from the RIAA

By: henry

henry — Mon, 22 May 2006 09:04:10 +0000

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.

By: foolswisdom

foolswisdom — Sun, 21 May 2006 23:28:25 +0000

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.

By: henry

henry — Sun, 21 May 2006 21:09:35 +0000

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.

By: foolswisdom

foolswisdom — Sun, 21 May 2006 02:00:53 +0000

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.

By: henry

henry — Sat, 20 May 2006 16:22:51 +0000

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.

By: henry

henry — Fri, 19 May 2006 18:54:39 +0000

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.