Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
	<1992Nov13.215749.24667@midway.uchicago.edu>
Apparently-To: rec-music-gaffa@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

In <1992Nov13.215749.24667@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:


>Capitalism and the concept of "accumulation of capital"  has had many
>victims.  Theft is merely an opposite:  It does not have to be done by 
>a poor starving soul to be classified as a reaction/strike against the 
>system, anyone can do it.  But remember that striking back at the 
>system has risks.  I believe that if someone is prepared to accept those
>risks, fine.  I dont believe that there is something intrinsically 
>sacred about "private property" so that its violation should be 
>considered morally wrong.  It is unfortunate that making music,
>or creating a painting is currently so tied into money/currency 
>that issues such as copywriting etc basically govern who gets
>to enjoy those resources (which inturn is governed by our racist/ 
>sexist/homophobic societies).  Theft puts the system in spin, which
>I personally enjoy the concept of.  However it is unfortunate when 
>the "real" victims happen to be honest ethical busness people (I hope
>you didn't take my comments as a personal affront since I do 
>sympathise with you).

You're not solving anything by victimizing other people.  Theft is not the
opposite of capitalism; it's merely the acquisition of property by breaking
the rules.  You're victimizing people as much as capitalists are when you
steal from them.  "Striking back at the system" indeed.  How much difference
is there between the common thief and the money-grubbing corporation?  It's
a truly sick idea to fantasize that thievery is some sort of radical
protest.  Intrinsically sacred property is not.  But ethics and morals are
part of people, not part of things.  When you commit a theft, you're not
wronging the property, you're wronging the person.  NOT the system...the
system will carry on regardless of how many people steal MY CD player or
wallet.  Copyright (spelled correctly) nothing--it costs money to make the
album.  You won't enjoy anything if the artist can't put money into making
it.  I don't think copyrighting is governed by racists, sexists, and
homophobes--I am none of those things and I am not a thief.  Copyright
basically says you can't steal ideas and profit by them. 
Whether or not you personally enjoy the system in spin is your business, but
know that stealing doesn't do that; it hurts individuals, not the
system.

And I would hope that any civilized person would take your comments as a
personal affront.  Having dealt with homophobia (in my case, biphobia), I
know what it's like to question one's morals, and wonder whether by holding
such morals you're being bigoted and narrow-minded.  But the difference is
that sexuality, race, gender, and the like hurt no one; theft does.  Your
arguments, such as they are, do not justify it.  Think hard.

Drewcifer
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:39:09 EST
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:16:58 -0500
From: maus@fid.Morgan.COM (Malcolm Austin)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <9211122315.AA22083@Morgan.COM>