Does Copying Music = Stealing?
My $.02
Thursday, December 15, 2005 by Arquonzo | Discussion: Personal Computing
Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music is the same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:
I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.
My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.
I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.
Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.
Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!
At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?
Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!
I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.
My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.
I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.
Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.
Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!
At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?
Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!
 |
|
Page 5 of 7 | |
|
|---|
starkers
Reply #82 Monday, December 26, 2005 8:17 PM
Reply #82 Monday, December 26, 2005 8:17 PM
BTW, Jafo....I've been called Neanderthal, Moron and Missing Link before, but given the context in which it was said, 'twas a bit hard not to take it as a compliment 
Not too sure if that would apply here, but thanks for your input...before the introduction of sticks 'n stones
Not too sure if that would apply here, but thanks for your input...before the introduction of sticks 'n stones
MilkMan0214
Reply #83 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 7:59 AM
Once again, you should read before responding. The key to my entire first post was that if your actions DO NOT HARM ANYONE ELSE, I don't think they're immoral. As I broke down quite clearly, in my situation, downloading music causes absolutely no loss of revenue for the artists, and from referals has actually sold CDs that otherwise wouldn't have been bought. That's why I don't think it's immoral. Whether or not it is against the law doesn't have any impact on its ethical status for me. For example: Drugs are illegal, but I don't find them immoral.
Sorry Jafo. I'll try to keep it nicer from now on.
Reply #83 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 7:59 AM
| my reply addressed your apparent propensity to steal without compunction or remorse. Irrespective of impact...regardless of how great or small, whether affecting many or just a few, only one even....a crime is crime. |
Once again, you should read before responding. The key to my entire first post was that if your actions DO NOT HARM ANYONE ELSE, I don't think they're immoral. As I broke down quite clearly, in my situation, downloading music causes absolutely no loss of revenue for the artists, and from referals has actually sold CDs that otherwise wouldn't have been bought. That's why I don't think it's immoral. Whether or not it is against the law doesn't have any impact on its ethical status for me. For example: Drugs are illegal, but I don't find them immoral.
Sorry Jafo. I'll try to keep it nicer from now on.
Jafo
Reply #84 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 8:11 AM
Reply #84 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 8:11 AM
| For example: Drugs are illegal, but I don't find them immoral. |
The problem is, that like drugs, and warez use, and downloading music....the affected parties are not always clear and obvious...but they DO exist.
This concept that I wouldn't buy it anyway therefore taking it does not lose a sale is totally flawed.
Fundamentally.
You would have to PROVE you would NOT buy it by actually ALSO not having it in any other way....it's an existentialist thing.
Same argument has always been raised that the building of flats next door WILL lower your resale value.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove.
The only way to do so is to actually contemporaneously clone the situation...buyers, location, etc...and the ONLY difference being the variable...the flats vs the single residence.
Since that CANNOT happen the argument cannot be proved/tried.
Same goes with Music sales vs theft.
Calling it a 'moral' issue...means..."well I can effing sleep at night so I don't give a shit"...and therefore it's OK....
starkers
Reply #85 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:50 AM
For every action there's a reaction, cause and effect, etc, anf like Jafo said, you cannot prove that you're not harming someone somewhere by stealing music. However, my point was not so much to do with the theft of music, but the lack of social conscience....as in little or no impact on anyone for downloading that song, so now I'll take that purse full of money that somebody left there has obviously no use for any more.
If one small, seemingly impactless crime, is acceptable and consequenceless, then other, more impacting crimes become easier to commit...ie, a shoplifter stealing a packet of gum will continue to steal a progress to greater things until they're caught and made accountable.
Once we as a society start making excuse for 'seemingly impactless crimes, we're saying it's okay to break the law, and we cannot afford to give that mandate because there'll always be that somebody prepared to push the envelope to its limit.
So you think that drugs are illegal but not immoral....try telling that to the health workers who constantly have to deal with addicts, overdoses and the broken families of those who cannot fight their addiction. They will tell you it's immoral. It's illegal to be a drug peddler, and there's a very good reason for that....the social and moral impact it has on the community as a whole. The guy shooting up in his room may not be impacting on anyone else at that particular moment, but eventually his ethical stance will have a much broader moral effect...the rehab and OD resucitation teams attesting to that fact.
It doesn't actually impact upon the dead person whose shoes wallet and car keys are removed, but does that make it right to rifle through their belongings?
Whether you like them or not, laws are there for a reason...and without them we'd have anarchy, of which you may very well be a victim, rather than a perpetrator!
There's the have's and have not's in this world, and I'm one of the latter, with not alot to my name, but I don't take that which does not belong to me just because others have it and I don't. Okay, so you've got this irreplacable, once in a life-time warez song on your computer and somebody without it copies, then deletes it....does that not impact on you? Your time, effort and IP costs to download it...wasted, gone, zilch!
I think you'd find a moral. ethical reason to complain when the impact is on yourself, rather than those anonymous people you've seen fit to reap the rewards of without payment. Reality check in aisle 3 please!
Reply #85 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:50 AM
| Once again, you should read before responding. The key to my entire first post was that if your actions DO NOT HARM ANYONE ELSE, I don't think they're immoral. |
For every action there's a reaction, cause and effect, etc, anf like Jafo said, you cannot prove that you're not harming someone somewhere by stealing music. However, my point was not so much to do with the theft of music, but the lack of social conscience....as in little or no impact on anyone for downloading that song, so now I'll take that purse full of money that somebody left there has obviously no use for any more.
If one small, seemingly impactless crime, is acceptable and consequenceless, then other, more impacting crimes become easier to commit...ie, a shoplifter stealing a packet of gum will continue to steal a progress to greater things until they're caught and made accountable.
Once we as a society start making excuse for 'seemingly impactless crimes, we're saying it's okay to break the law, and we cannot afford to give that mandate because there'll always be that somebody prepared to push the envelope to its limit.
So you think that drugs are illegal but not immoral....try telling that to the health workers who constantly have to deal with addicts, overdoses and the broken families of those who cannot fight their addiction. They will tell you it's immoral. It's illegal to be a drug peddler, and there's a very good reason for that....the social and moral impact it has on the community as a whole. The guy shooting up in his room may not be impacting on anyone else at that particular moment, but eventually his ethical stance will have a much broader moral effect...the rehab and OD resucitation teams attesting to that fact.
It doesn't actually impact upon the dead person whose shoes wallet and car keys are removed, but does that make it right to rifle through their belongings?
Whether you like them or not, laws are there for a reason...and without them we'd have anarchy, of which you may very well be a victim, rather than a perpetrator!
There's the have's and have not's in this world, and I'm one of the latter, with not alot to my name, but I don't take that which does not belong to me just because others have it and I don't. Okay, so you've got this irreplacable, once in a life-time warez song on your computer and somebody without it copies, then deletes it....does that not impact on you? Your time, effort and IP costs to download it...wasted, gone, zilch!
I think you'd find a moral. ethical reason to complain when the impact is on yourself, rather than those anonymous people you've seen fit to reap the rewards of without payment. Reality check in aisle 3 please!
dudeman
Reply #86 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:28 PM
This doesn't seem that hard to prove if you just look at it very practically. If your friend mentions a band to you and says they're really good and you decide to download it and after listening to a few songs you decide it's the worst band you've ever heard, why would it be so unbelievable that you wouldn't ever buy the album? We've all had this experience. You don't have to get philosophical about it.
Regarding the issue of downloading music automatically equalling loss revenue, there are just so many variables that really can't be proven scientifically that it makes it near impossible to figure out. I mean if I did copy a CD for a friend, and he liked it and then decided to go out and buy their other albums and then copied it for his friends who hated it and gave it to their other friends who loved it and copied it for their friends who loved it even more and decided to buy concert tickets and on and on and on...where exactly are we with the sales numbers? Have we helped them? Hurt them? Broke even? You can't calculate it.
But I do know that before CD's were around, people were doing the EXACT same thing with cassette tapes, copying them like crazy for friends, and the music industry still thrived and people were still going to the shows.
I believe there may be more than one thief here. Again, more variables. Check out this article by Courtney Love. Probably the smartest thing she's ever written.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
Reply #86 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:28 PM
| This concept that I wouldn't buy it anyway therefore taking it does not lose a sale is totally flawed. Fundamentally. |
This doesn't seem that hard to prove if you just look at it very practically. If your friend mentions a band to you and says they're really good and you decide to download it and after listening to a few songs you decide it's the worst band you've ever heard, why would it be so unbelievable that you wouldn't ever buy the album? We've all had this experience. You don't have to get philosophical about it.
Regarding the issue of downloading music automatically equalling loss revenue, there are just so many variables that really can't be proven scientifically that it makes it near impossible to figure out. I mean if I did copy a CD for a friend, and he liked it and then decided to go out and buy their other albums and then copied it for his friends who hated it and gave it to their other friends who loved it and copied it for their friends who loved it even more and decided to buy concert tickets and on and on and on...where exactly are we with the sales numbers? Have we helped them? Hurt them? Broke even? You can't calculate it.
But I do know that before CD's were around, people were doing the EXACT same thing with cassette tapes, copying them like crazy for friends, and the music industry still thrived and people were still going to the shows.
I believe there may be more than one thief here. Again, more variables. Check out this article by Courtney Love. Probably the smartest thing she's ever written.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
Bichur
Reply #87 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:38 PM
Do not speak for me. I haven't. Never got a copy from a friend or relative. Never made one for same. Have never burned my own disk. I own 3 CDs (bought 4 yrs ago when I found out my dvd will play them. I own 4 cassettes (last one bought 7 yrs ago). I own 15 vinyls (don't remember when I bought the last one, but it was Cat Mother and the All Night News Boys). Since I prefer variety and surprse - FM or cable music channels work for me.
Actually it's homicide. And yes, there are different levels including "justifiable".
Reply #87 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:38 PM
| However, everyone (regardless of who admits) is illegal of making a copy of a CD or accepting one at one time or another. EVERYONE. |
Do not speak for me. I haven't. Never got a copy from a friend or relative. Never made one for same. Have never burned my own disk. I own 3 CDs (bought 4 yrs ago when I found out my dvd will play them. I own 4 cassettes (last one bought 7 yrs ago). I own 15 vinyls (don't remember when I bought the last one, but it was Cat Mother and the All Night News Boys). Since I prefer variety and surprse - FM or cable music channels work for me.
| Killing someone with a knife, spear or gun is murder and is tried that way..regardless of the weapon used. |
Actually it's homicide. And yes, there are different levels including "justifiable".
starkers
Reply #88 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:12 PM
Here we go again...another play on words. Whilst the term Homicide includes various ways of killing someone....to actually kill with intent is murder, regardless of method or weapon used. Homicide also includes when one is forced to defend themselves...ie, kill or be killed.
In some cases that would be considered justifiable homicide, but all too often these days, it's not. The onus is on the survivor to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they'd otherwise be dead....that less than killing the other person would not have saved their own life.
I recently read of a case of a man who killed another in self defence after being stabbed seven times (justifiable homicide?)....he was convicted of 2nd degree murder and was considered to have used excessive/deadly force as he could not establish his 'otherwise' demise.
Yeah, sometimes the law is an ass, but I'd rather have it than not...despite my own personal complaints about its wrongful interpretation at times. I've been threatened by police with charges of kidnapping, deprivation of liberty and wrongful detention because I removed my 15 yo step-daughter from the back seat of a 28 yo man's car. Go figure!
I could think of a justifiable homicide or 3, but I don't reckon any court'd see it that way.
Oh well, time for some more meds and bed (8.10am Oz time) cos I been up all night agin.
Reply #88 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:12 PM
| Actually it's homicide. And yes, there are different levels including "justifiable". |
Here we go again...another play on words. Whilst the term Homicide includes various ways of killing someone....to actually kill with intent is murder, regardless of method or weapon used. Homicide also includes when one is forced to defend themselves...ie, kill or be killed.
In some cases that would be considered justifiable homicide, but all too often these days, it's not. The onus is on the survivor to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they'd otherwise be dead....that less than killing the other person would not have saved their own life.
I recently read of a case of a man who killed another in self defence after being stabbed seven times (justifiable homicide?)....he was convicted of 2nd degree murder and was considered to have used excessive/deadly force as he could not establish his 'otherwise' demise.
Yeah, sometimes the law is an ass, but I'd rather have it than not...despite my own personal complaints about its wrongful interpretation at times. I've been threatened by police with charges of kidnapping, deprivation of liberty and wrongful detention because I removed my 15 yo step-daughter from the back seat of a 28 yo man's car. Go figure!
I could think of a justifiable homicide or 3, but I don't reckon any court'd see it that way.
Oh well, time for some more meds and bed (8.10am Oz time) cos I been up all night agin.
Cataleptic
Reply #89 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:16 PM
You mean legal definitions? Oh how confusing!
Why can't people call 'manslaughter' 'murder'. Why can't people call 'greivous bodily harm' 'verbal abuse'? Because the distinction matters. And when those in power try to confuse the distinction, is rarely for our benefit.
Thankyou for demonstrating that other instance of corporate doublethink. Intellectual property is an oxymoron. Plain and simple. The phrase was invented to give legitimacy to corporate attempts to hijack existing copyright and patent law for their own ends. The use of the word 'property' in that context is also utterly spurious.
I'm not disputing that acquiring copys of music you don't own is wrong, nor am I arguing that it should be legal. However, Corporate rhetoric has introduced some very dubious concepts into the public arena, and if we don't pay close attention to how we think and talk about these things, we'll lose what few rights we have left.
I for one don't want to live in a world where format-shifting is illegal, and DRM means coughing up a micro-payment whenever I listen to any recorded music.
Reply #89 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:16 PM
| Same shit, different stink! Semantics...language manipulation...dictionary amendments; omissions; alterations; incomplete entries! |
You mean legal definitions? Oh how confusing!
Why the hell can't people call a spade a spade? |
Why can't people call 'manslaughter' 'murder'. Why can't people call 'greivous bodily harm' 'verbal abuse'? Because the distinction matters. And when those in power try to confuse the distinction, is rarely for our benefit.
Copyright infringement is acquiring somebody's 'property' without consent.....AS IS STEALING. |
Thankyou for demonstrating that other instance of corporate doublethink. Intellectual property is an oxymoron. Plain and simple. The phrase was invented to give legitimacy to corporate attempts to hijack existing copyright and patent law for their own ends. The use of the word 'property' in that context is also utterly spurious.
I'm not disputing that acquiring copys of music you don't own is wrong, nor am I arguing that it should be legal. However, Corporate rhetoric has introduced some very dubious concepts into the public arena, and if we don't pay close attention to how we think and talk about these things, we'll lose what few rights we have left.
I for one don't want to live in a world where format-shifting is illegal, and DRM means coughing up a micro-payment whenever I listen to any recorded music.
Bichur
Reply #90 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:25 PM
hmph...Texas is more understanding in that regard. 'He needed killing' is still a justifiable defense in most areas.
Reply #90 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:25 PM
| he was convicted of 2nd degree murder and was considered to have used excessive/deadly force as he could not establish his 'otherwise' demise. |
hmph...Texas is more understanding in that regard. 'He needed killing' is still a justifiable defense in most areas.
Jafo
Reply #91 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:41 PM
Reply #91 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:41 PM
| Regarding the issue of downloading music automatically equalling loss revenue, there are just so many variables that really can't be proven scientifically that it makes it near impossible to figure out. |
Just what I said....
The difference with online music 'distribution' vs Joe Shmuck copying his LP to a Cassette....the latter is pretty much one on one....the former is one on thousands/maybe millions.
The latter is more 'duplication' than distribution.
The former is more world-wide distribution than 'helping out a friend'.
Last I checked...world-wide distribution rights are NOT in the Terms Of Use of a purchased CD so it is unlawful, ergo it is theft.
But the usual bunch of [predominantly young] moralists will argue they myopically cannot SEE harm therefore there IS none.....and will continue the practise.....irrespective of opinion or consequence.
Never before, in the field of human debate has so much been said by so many for so little result...
sushiK
Reply #92 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:52 PM
Reply #92 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:52 PM
Fuck SOny Corp.
It is stealing, but it is stealing from Sony not the bands.
It is stealing, but it is stealing from Sony not the bands.
Jafo
Reply #93 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:01 PM
Reply #93 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:01 PM
| Fuck SOny Corp. It is stealing, but it is stealing from Sony not the bands. |
No...if the bands are contracted to Sony then you are actually 'fucking' the bands. Sony can weather the storm, but the bands just might not......if profitability [for Sony] is lost because one particular band is being pirated they can always drop the uneconomical and go with the ones who still pull an income.
Then the bands lose their existing distribution/publicity and end up another pathetic garage band touting for airplay in some RSL/Scout hall.
....or becoming 'hip and trendy' by embracing the online distribution, only to be warez'd by people who think $1 per song is still too damn much...when you can just 'fuck the bands' directly and take it ALL.
Jafo
Reply #94 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:05 PM
Reply #94 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:05 PM
There is ONLY two sides to this 'debate'.
Those who admit is is wrong, but 'possibly' do it a bit, or not at all.
and
Those who claim it is NOT wrong, so they have no reservations about 'doing it'.
One 'may' be hypocritical, but the other is definitely fancifully delusional.
Island Dog
Reply #95 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 6:56 PM
Do you have anything to back that statement up with?
Reply #95 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 6:56 PM
| As I broke down quite clearly, in my situation, downloading music causes absolutely no loss of revenue for the artists, and from referals has actually sold CDs that otherwise wouldn't have been bought. |
XX
Reply #97 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 8:00 PM
I actually never shared a music cd or whatever in my whole life. I don't care about music at all and don't listen to them. After all, I'm deaf and cannot hear and enjoy the music. Never make an absolute statement. It's likely that it will bite you.
Reply #97 Tuesday, December 27, 2005 8:00 PM
| However, everyone (regardless of who admits) is illegal of making a copy of a CD or accepting one at one time or another. EVERYONE. |
I actually never shared a music cd or whatever in my whole life. I don't care about music at all and don't listen to them. After all, I'm deaf and cannot hear and enjoy the music. Never make an absolute statement. It's likely that it will bite you.
starkers
Reply #98 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 12:56 AM
Okay, so you come home with your paycheck and hand it to your wife, she puts it in her purse to pay bills and buy your groceries, then I come along and take her purse, paycheck 'n all. Have I stolen from her, or you, or both?
When enough purses have been stolen from Sony, because there's a multitude of morons who think it's okay to rob the rich, their contracted musicians/artists slice of the pie becomes even smaller...if there's any left for the smaller guys.
Reply #98 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 12:56 AM
| Fuck SOny Corp. It is stealing, but it is stealing from Sony not the bands |
Okay, so you come home with your paycheck and hand it to your wife, she puts it in her purse to pay bills and buy your groceries, then I come along and take her purse, paycheck 'n all. Have I stolen from her, or you, or both?
When enough purses have been stolen from Sony, because there's a multitude of morons who think it's okay to rob the rich, their contracted musicians/artists slice of the pie becomes even smaller...if there's any left for the smaller guys.
Vailene
Reply #99 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 5:49 AM
That was a statement for those (obviously) who can listen to music.
I'm not bitten, I'm jealous. At least you don't have to listen to my wife all of the time
Your situation also has advantages. I loved being deaf in my right ear for a few months.
Reply #99 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 5:49 AM
| I actually never shared a music cd or whatever in my whole life. I don't care about music at all and don't listen to them. After all, I'm deaf and cannot hear and enjoy the music. Never make an absolute statement. It's likely that it will bite you. |
That was a statement for those (obviously) who can listen to music.
I'm not bitten, I'm jealous. At least you don't have to listen to my wife all of the time
Your situation also has advantages. I loved being deaf in my right ear for a few months.
Jafo
Reply #100 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:49 AM
Reply #100 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:49 AM
| Your situation also has advantages. I loved being deaf in my right ear for a few months. |
I'm pretty sure Rolf would rather NOT have those 'advantages'.
My wife gets free public transport .....but I'm also certain she'd rather be able to drive a car, and not be classified as 'vision impaired'...
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 5 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #81 Monday, December 26, 2005 8:05 PM
Oh, I agree. There are definate standouts amoung blues artists. I've listened to a great deal myself, and for the most part I enjoy the genre. But you have to admit, (and being a musician I can tell you for sure that a great deal of the melodies in various blues songs are almost note for note the same), there is a great deal of 'borrowing' going on between artists.
Indeeeeedy, there are some staAaand out performers......and even if one or two of 'em borrow a bit of this and that, it's okay with me (and not being a musician I can tell you for sure that I like it all nonetheless) cos it's what each artist uniquely does with a tune that makes all the difference.
At the end of the day, I guess, there's only so many ways to bake an apple pie....meaning there's little or no hope for rap. Could add a lisp or nasal tone, I suppose. Yeah, yeah...why add another speech impediment, I hear you say.