Many of the posts here support the RIAA's position and at least one takes Wah to task for inflammatory material in his retort.
Unfortunately, I agree that the retort isn't terribly persuasive. However, we should not support the RIAA in it's legal battles against listeners and fans of pop music. Instead, we should support content producers, the artists and musicians, in their right to protect their work through copyright law. The RIAA is only a side show who serve the large distributors and record label companies -- musicians be damned.
From this perspective it's clear that Metallica is in their right to protect their music from illegal copying, just as Microsoft is in their right to protect their software from illegal software piracy. That they have chosen to challenge their fan base through legal intimidation is their right. That many fans will react through a boycott of Metallica is their right in return.
And here we have the crux of the difference between Wah, the RIAA, Metallica, and Bruce Peren's position. Unfortunately, the RIAA, Metallica, and Bruce are in the legal right while Wah is promoting a position of righteousness, which while in some ways reasonable, simply isn't feasible.
Richard Stallman is in Wah's court here. He has openly stated that he thinks it's appropriate to share music and other types of intellectual property. However, the difference between Wah and rms is that rms backs up his moral position with his own code base, rather than trading "warez" on prep.ai.mit.edu. What wah seems to be promoting is the right of trading above the rights of the content producers, when what we all should really be doing is figuring out the most expidicious method to both lower content prices (maybe even free) in exchange for cutting out the RIAA and record distributor middlemen so that the artists can directly profit from their creations.
What we have is a new mechanism for distribution which the record labels can't control. What we need now is a legal business model (which includes canned licenses and contracts) that artists can understand and use which increases the artists's profit at the expense of the record labels. The first band that makes it big along these lines break the major label's monopoly on distribution, get rich beyond their wildest dreams, and be able to do it all at a fraction of the cost of today's standard CD's (maybe even free).
The only way we're going to get free music is to persuade the artists and musicians that it's in their best interests to give away their work -- just as rms, Linus, Bruce, and all the other free coders give away free software yet don't go hungry. I believe the only successful argument is to show how musicians can earn a good living through example. To this effort it might make sense to fund a new organization of attorneys like the EFF devoted to creating legal instruments for musicians and artists to manage their own copyrights. Then the next hurdle will be defining standards for home brew internet marketing which doesn't rely on SPAM... heh, do you really want to encourage ten thousand clueless bands to "self-promote" via the wonders of email???
Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.