Cracker's David Lowery, NPR Intern Argue Over Illegal Downloading, Stars Pile On

This small thread sums up the whole problem with this debate. jasper.delatorio says he thinks maybe the files were legal, and he gets two responses saying in effect that the only reason he cares about the files being legal is because he's trying to justify ripping off artists.

Do you other two understand how stupid you sound? If Emily's rips were legal she didn't rip anyone off. That's not a whiny justification, that's the whole enchilada, people. She has a right to legal behavior.

a_burr: I will admit I haven't seen the piece where Lowery confirms that Emily's radio station did not have a deal with gatekeepers that allowed DJs to rip music from the catalog for review purposes. If you could cite that, I would appreciate it. I still don't see it in the original essay or in the comments.

That said, if you don't understand the difference between obtaining music "illegally" and illegal downloading you have missed the entire point of Lowery's piece. I love your use of "what you've done." Your crowd keeps moving the bar about what "ripping off" mean and making unfounded accusations. People snivel and whine when you do because they hate the alternative, which is no paying for music ever, at any time, no discussion.

Finally, my copy of work by DCFC or anyone else is my property, not theirs. That is true whether the physical item is a record, a piece of sheet music or a hard drive. I don't need any justification to do with it what I wish. It's up to rightsholders to provide justification for any exception or limit, and I agree there should be some. Once we agree on all this, we can start negotiating owner's ethical responsibilities to creators.

Will Buckley: Unauthorized sites that offer file-sharing downloads are plagarists. No, I do not approve of what you say Grooveshark did, and publishers that pull that stunt should suffer consequences. In my experience folks take it down immediately even fi they did it on purpose, but I don't have millions at stake, so I understand the concern.

I have a First Amendment right - not an entitlement, a Right - to hear free music for free. The question is, who is allowed to let me access it? The courts and our culture have set all kinds of boundaries on this subject over the decades. For example, broadcast radio is free, and we all agree we have a right to that, although the Supreme Court had to rule against the labels for us to get that freedom.

You acknowledge that there is such as thing as " artists choosing to leak a song or give it away," which i appreciate, as David Lowery failed to do that too. He tried to speak for every one of those artists on Emily's hard drive and he had no place to do that. A typical college radio DJ is going to own more legally free tracks then she will David Lowery tracks.

Emily was addressed by name in the tile of the piece and insulted throughout the comments section of the NPR piece. If David did not intend to make her a target, he failed.

Finally, as for "operators of unauthorized file sharing sites who profit from other people's work with no intent for compensation," Emily says she refused to use them and David does not really discuss them. Emily herself said she would pay. David's upset that she doesn't want to pay ENOUGH.

Not so fast Jasper, we hear this kind of double speak all the time from operators of unauthorized file sharing sites who profit from other people's work with no intent for compensation.

The fact of the matter was that the author was actually very kind and understanding in his dealings with the young intern. It was what she had to say about acquiring music that was the problem. And at the end of the day she was simply the catalyst for the piece not the target.

Spend some time reading through the comments and you will find many from young people stating: "Gee I never thought about it that way, I can feel good about supporting artists, I'll pay.".

So instead of trying to discredit the article, why don't you really say what you mean. I'm entitled to get my music for free.

Oh and by the way, what is the connection between artists choosing to leak a song or give it away and Groveshark choosing to add anything or everything and give it away. Isn't there something fundamentally wrong there? Or do you support business men who run business that rip people off?

David Lowery did confirm with NPR that the music was obtained illegally before publishing his piece. So who is the lazy one publishing misinformation?

As far as DCFC and Stars, of course artists should have the choice to do whatever the heck they want with their work. It's when *you* choose to take something that *I've* made against my wishes is when I get prickly. At least have the courage, like Emily White did, to be honest about what you've done. The sniveling whiny self-justification on the part of the people who choose to rip off artists this way is the worst.

Let me correct you a bit - The NPR intern was not discussing illegal downloading. The vast majority of her collection was obtained via rips at her college radio station that were most likely legal.

Her thesis is that she will support artists, but not by purchasing music files since, having experimented with legal MP3s, she prefers legal streaming.

Your mistake is understandable given the noise generated by the commenters, who shockingly don't care about the legal issues, let alone how people actually get music in 2012. Their argument is that if musicians want money, either she is wrong for not giving it to them or she "hates" them. I haven't seen so many bullies demanding 25 cents from kids since I attended public school in 6th grade.

Lowery in his post assumed without any proof or research that her copies were illegal, that the artists had not approved them, and that she owed money for them. His whole post was based on those unfounded assumptions. He embarrassed himself. The way he carried on, you would have thought that the intern did, in fact, confess to something illegal. She did not ... and yet he and many commenters are as red-faced as if she had. They are aggressively panhandling people, nothing more.

In particular, Death Cab For Cutie and Stars have legally leaked tracks themselves. They give their music away. They should be ashamed for joining the mob of angry bums.