It was a very interesting discussion and thanks to those who waded through it. Please let me know your thoughts. Owen posted yesterday on his blog that he's moderated his opinion of how dangerous and file-swapping really is an accepts, though not to the degree I do, the "pox on both houses" argument. For my part, he may well be correct about the CD prices. I would love to hear an explanation for how music videos are anything but a sinkhole for money and a luxury competitors in a non-oligarchic industry would not be able to afford, but by and large considering their influence over the airwaves, they could be worse. The rest of my arguments still stand, though, and I believe provide sufficient ammunition to shoot down the rectitude of the RIAA.

As a fiction-writer-type-person, one thing that interested me most about the discussion with Owen was the character motivation. I've been accused of seeing the world in black and white before, but very often I'm skilled at taking an argument and being able to turn it into a red-blue argument (or, to avoid the famous 2000 map, a green-orange one). It helps me insofar that I don't plug my philosophical beliefs into my favorite characters and view moral worthiness is not determined by whether they are a Democrat or Republican. The main character in my first novel is a libertarian-minded Republican and in my second is a pro-life Democrat. Different experiences lead to different conclusions. They're both still wrong, though, of course. It's nonetheless helpful in both my fiction and non-fiction writing to be able to take a disagreement I am having and put it in the green-orange context.

I thought about this and started doing it during my discussion with Owen as we both admitted our various biases. In Owen's case, he saw a computer platform die due to piracy so the evils of it is very real to him. He prefers national musicians over local ones and is not a music afficionado in the sense that I am, so the record company provides him with a valuabe service by filtering artists and presenting the best ones for his consumption. Furthermore, he is in college which is where the most blatant piracy in the country takes place, so he's seeing the worst of it and therefore much more concerned.

In my case, I would say 2/3 of my CD collection is composed of artists that have never been signed or, even if they have, have either been dropped or recieved relatively little national airplay. Most of them I would have discovered even if they hadn't been signed. I rarely listen to the radio anymore. The services provided to me by record companies is minimal. Their primary effect on my life and music selection is obstructive. They shut down Napster, they are trying to keep me from burning CDs that I already own, and they dominate the airwaves and squeeze out my favorite musicians. I am also inclined to purchase CDs where I download the mp3s so my anecdotal evidence suggests that they won't go out of business anyway. If they do, I won't lose any sleep at night over it.

In both of our cases, this colors our perspective of the entire debate. Even though we more or less are sharing the same set of facts, our primary concerns are different. To him, the record company may be out of bounds, but they have to protect themselves. To me, I don't care about the RIAA much one way or another; I just want them to get out of the way so that I can buy the CDs (most of which aren't theirs) and do with them what I want. We both agree that the record companies are wrong. We both agree that the freeloaders are wrong. The question is, who is more wrong and where are the wrongs more damaging? That's where we disagree, and if you look at our character backstories, you understand why perfectly.