Response #1: A real musician responds to Brent's Napster article:
I was interested to read your article about Napster. You make some interesting points, but your main thrust seems to be that it's OK to steal music as long as you can first dis-credit the musician you stole it from. I have a more simple view: If you don't own the copyright, you shouldn't make a song available to others. Very simple. The trouble with theft is that people don't mind doing it as long as they can justify it to themselves. Your own personal justification is pretty poor. But hey, no-one's perfect, not even Dr Dre...
Thanks for writing, Richard. I'm glad to get feedback from someone in a band -- that's a first.
I'm not trying to justify the stealing of music. The main idea of the article was to point out the hypocrisy of some bands who've sided with the RIAA.
I don't believe theft is justified, even if I can discredit the singer or band from whom I could potentially steal music. Please note that I didn't say that I actually use Napster -- I don't. (Actually, I can't -- my work doesn't allow it, and my modem at home isn't anything to brag about. Would I? Honestly, I don't know -- I'm not sure that downloading music is wrong.)
But I am very interested in the conduct of bands who've sided with the RIAA on the Napster issue, and the reasons they have done so. While a lot of my argument is based on a band's integrity rather than the law (for instance, I don't believe Creed will ever be in court for infringement, because the court wouldn't recognize such a claim. But I think pointing out Creed's hypocrisy is fair.)
LOOOOOOOOOVE the Napster article! With your permission I'd like to post it on my website. Here's an article of mine...
Thanks for the in-depth view into things!
Well, thanks for all the LOOOOOOOOOOOVE. I'm sure I'll get around to reading your article some day. Brent's seemed to have said everything that needed to be said.