Many readers of the post were very upset over how critical Farhad was being of J.K. Rowling. They maintained that she had every right to stop the books publication, and seemed to think it absurd to suggest otherwise (they also seemed upset that Farhad had called Rowling greedy, since profits for her planned encyclopedia will go to charity, but that’s another story). In most cases, people felt that Rowling should have control over the world she created, and perhaps more importantly, someone else should not be able to profit from her work. My response in turn: “NO NO NO!!!”

I have not read a single Harry Potter book, but because I live and breath, I know that Harry Potter has had a significant impact on millions of people. For whatever reason, the events, people, creatures and magical thingamajigs which make up the Harry Potter books (and movies) matter a lot to people. There is absolutely no reason Rowling should be able to claim ownership over facts about these entities. Even if she can do so legally, there is no reason why Farhad’s readers should be leaping to her defense.

In today’s wonderfully high-tech, internet-enabled, fully digitized society, our copyright law is in a state of flux. There are lots of undecided questions about what should and shouldn’t be protected. The answers to these questions don’t need to be based on current laws or loosely related precedent, they can be based on the roll that we, as society, want copyright to serve.

When Farhad wrote about Prince’s crazed attempt to sue his own fan sites, everyone agreed that the singer was out of his mind. When the RIAA successfully sued a woman for over $9,000 dollars per downloaded song, folks were understandably concerned that the penalty was unfairly harsh (although in this example, the woman was in clear violation of the law). For some reason, though, when fantasy fiction is involved, judgement goes out the window.

Copyright law isn’t about making piles of money, it isn’t about preventing other people from making piles of money, and it certainly isn’t about providing artists complete control over their work (see “fair use“). It’s about providing a way (and I’m quoting the US Constitution here) “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” J.K. Rowling is doing just fine. She has already written her Harry Potter books, and she’s going to write her own Harry Potter Encyclopedia no matter what. Meanwhile, a book like the Harry Potter Lexicon only makes money because it’s based on books (and movies) that a very succesful. If the Lexicon gets published, nothing bad happens.

In contrast, a legal victory for Rowling actively prevents “useful arts” from being produced. The Harry Potter Lexicon is a genuinely valuable to many people (particularly those who write Harry Potter fan fiction), and some of these people would like to have a printed copy. In fact, Rowling herself has praised the Lexicon’s utility. If a court decision prevents the site’s creators from making money, it actively discourages others from creating similar reference material. Don’t people want this type of site to exist?

Too often discussions of copyright litigation focus on who has the god-given right to make money off a given work of art (example!). This accomplishes very little. Instead we need to consider why certain work is or isn’t valuable, and then decide accordingly how best to promote it. On a related note, if you like this post, feel free to give me a dollar.

Radiohead is certainly not the first band to sell their own album, and in fact not the first artist to let fans name their own price (Jane Siberry and Keith Green are two examples I’ve seen mentioned, the latter is pre-digital music). Even so, In Rainbows was likely downloaded over 1.2 million times the day of its release, so it’s clearly forging new territory. It looks like Nine Inch Nails may follow suit.

I’ve been a big fan of Radiohead for sometime (sorry Matt), especially Kid A and Amnesiac, but Hail to the Theif not so much. Also, I have a lot of contempt for the recording industry. Their zest for litigation and desire to strengthen copyright doesn’t appear to be in anyone’s best interest. This weekend I decided to support Radiohead and take a stance against big media. I made In Rainbows the most expensive album I’ve ever purchased, paying a whooping $51.59 for the albums 10 songs (really 25.45 pounds, since radiohead is actually charging for the album in pounds). I was tempted to pay an additional 15 pounds for the special edition box set, but vinyl and boxes just aren’t my thing.

Obviously I’m hoping that Radiohead’s new album does very well. Even though few bands have a comparable fan base, their success will likely inspire others to explore alternative ways of producing and distributing music. Originally I was disappointed that Radiohead isn’t allowing fans to pay nothing for the new album, but I’ve since reconsidered. You probably need to force people to enter their credit card number before they decide to be generous (perhaps shareware developers should take note).

I do think its superlame that the album is only downloadable as a not particularly high quality MP3. Since those of us who purchased the MP3 entered an email address and password, I’m hoping we’ll eventually be able to download a higher quality version. If not, I’ll probably illegally download the CD version of the album when it’s released next year. I don’t think Radiohead will mind.

As of now, I’ve only had a chance to listen to the album once. I listened to Saturday night while lying in bed. It was great. Maybe that’s because when you pay 5 dollars for a song, you listen to it really closely.

Update: Apparently you can download the album for free. I haven’t bothered to verify this, but I did just go to the website, enter “0″, and hit buy. The site then said I was on a queue, which didn’t happen when I paid for the album. Perhaps Radiohead is limiting the number of people who can download the album for free at any given time. Either way I approve.

Despite it’s popularity (and my expert status), I don’t use BitTorrent very often. Usually when I want an album I buy it legally using iTunes. I don’t watch that many movies, and TV shows are widely available on television, so why download them. When I do download something on BitTorrent, I like to have some sort of legal/moral justification in mind.

Recently I downloaded the movie Sicko, since Michael Moore doesn’t seem to mind if you download his movies for free. I also downloaded the album Night Ripper by Girl Talk, since I screwed up the ordering process and bought it without requesting the download as well. Also, Night Ripper is jam-packed with unlicensed samples, so Girl Talk probably won’t complain if he finds out you stole his music. Finally, I’m downloading Good Copy Bad Copy right this moment. It’s a documentary on copyright, so the filmmakers have wisely decided to make it freely available using BitTorrent.

There you have it, three download recommendations from a BitTorrent expert.