Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues a Child
dniq writes "You may remember the previously posted story about a case against a mother, which was dropped by the RIAA right after her lawyers moved to dismiss the case.
Well, guess what? The RIAA has brought a lawsuit against the mother's daughter - now a 14 year old girl - and moved for appointment of a guardian at litem."
This will show the public how absurd there greed really is if the national media reports on it (big if).
So, download MP3's -> lose your mother??
/target RIAA
/spit
/repeat ad infinitum
Remember that RIAA public service anouncement where zombie warriors would kill an entire family if you downloaded music from the internet? Is that really how far the RIAA would go in their avarice?
Well, at a glance, I would say the article in this post is FUD if the judge denied the request.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Bah... the usual problem, when people repeat something false often enought it subconciously become true, in an hypnotic way...
See WMD, video games consoles are all sold at loss, Apple is dying, BSD too and others that I have forgotten...
Life is getting soooo boring...
You're not a thief for downloading music, whatever the RIAAs PR says.
Theft is a criminal offence and copyright violation is a civil one - HUGE difference.
Am I a thief? yes. but it sits easier with my conscience than paying an industry which shows so readily all the worst tendencies of big business
I personally don't believe you and do strongly believe that you would come up with another justification to be a thief if the RIAA stopped suing people tomorrow. I don't know you, but I have this opinion of all thieves. Could you be different? Sure. But I simply don't believe you, and won't no matter what.
If you stopped stealing their content AND buying their content, I would applaud you for your morality. The RIAA doesn't own all music out there, go look for indie stuff, I'm sure you'll be surprised by what you find.
At the moment all you are is a thief with (IMO) a piss-weak justification.
That generally involves people claiming others' work as their own, which is not something any of these music "thieves" have been doing.
Since infringing on copyright deprived the copyright holder of income through the unauthorized distribution of said holder's copyrighted works.
Copyrighted works have value and, in the case of music, it is demostrated value (people pay for it). Because people are obtaining the music without paying for it, against the wishes of the copyright holder, when they would have had to pay for it, copyright holders are deprived of that income.
Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would never have paid for it, arguing that downloaders would not have bought the music does not stand.
Any other questions?
Side note: I am amazed at the hypocrisy I see when this issue appears. Many people who post they want the GPL upheld using copyright law, turn around and want to deprive others of their rights under copyright law.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
...I'd have to start organising an uprising. When are you guys going to get your act together and lobby your political representatives for an end to intellectual property law? Lazy bastards ;o)
Hey now, hold on, are you comparing the RIAA to an organised crime syndic... ah...
Remember, Nintendo is on its last legs and can't compete in the video games market
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
I hate to say it, but you're wrong.
The masses WILL roll over on this one--it's what they do best! The only way that the average joe will actually get upset about this is if the mass media tells them to. Collectively, people are sheep and will do whatever their perceived authorities tell them. Worse, once they've gotten used to a bad idea, they'll accept the next evolution of it with a minor whimper. (and the next, and the next...)
If the RIAA's behaviour hasn't led to rioting in the streets yet, this won't make it happen.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Several mistakes:
1. The copyright holder is only deprived of *potential* income. As neither of us knows if a specific person would have paid for the crap he downloaded and never listened to, you can't say that he was deprived of any real income. He only lost something he never had.
2. No matter if he would pay or not, the correct term is still "copyright infringement". The word "theft" covers *removing* something from a person, and to remove something, he had to have it in the first place.
3. Disagreeing with using the word "theft" is not the same as agreeing with illegal copying. Personally I would be happy if illegal copying didn't exist at all, but that doesn't mean that I want the RIAA and their fans (that includes you, apparently) to pollute the language by using the wrong words to deliberately confuse the case. In the normal usage of words, it is not theft, it's copying. In the legal sense, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. It's only theft in your fantasy, and the fantasy of the RIAA.
4. Two people disagreeing is not called a hypocrisy. Slashdot is not a person, it's a message board with lots of different people who have different oppinions, and who post on different topics. The GPL fans who don't care about the RIAA-topics have one oppinion, and the Kazaa-fans who don't care about the GPL-topics have a different oppinion.
5. In conclusion, how about learning the language before you post? Let me just list the words you have confused in your post:
Income vs Potential income.
Theft vs Copyright infringement.
Hypocrisis vs Different oppinions.
Please learn the differences. Then you'd be able to sound like an intelligent person and not just an RIAA marketing guy.
As long as people are buying their products, they'll happily let you burn them. The execs will just laugh all the way to the bank. While the ideology of what you're saying is in the right directions, what you should be truly thinking about is long term boycott of their products (or simply purchasing second hand material).
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
This is a wonderful strategy - demand that the court appoint a legal guardian which is usually done to pit the childs interests against those of the parent or guardian, usually as a precursor to reassign parental rights. It is brilliant that now a corporation can sue you and move to take your children away at the same time.
A friend of mine asked my opinion on a DVD he was about to purchase. At my suggestion he came to my house and watched it. He subsequently decided it wasn't worth purchase.
So in effect I have deprived artists and studios of potential income too.
As does every reviewer who dissuades a potential purchaser.
If we are saying it is perfectly acceptable to sue anyone who takes potential income from you then society would be in a lot of trouble. The lottery would have to go, as would interviewing for jobs....
[)amien
"Music thieves" are admitting the work is not theirs. They are giving away a product that is not theirs to give away.
That's still not theft.
And, in the processes, depriving the copyright holders of income.
I'm doing the same thing by not buying their pap. Contrary to coprorate belief, that's NOT EVEN ILLEGAL.
This is one of the problems I think with society today. As much as we are against it, and as much as we preach that they're horrible, not one of us will do anything. We'll just go on our day downloading music. A bunch of us will even still buy their cd's.
I know I haven't done much, but I have refused to purchase / download any RIAA backed music for the last 4 years. It's not much, but I do know that my money isn't funding this piece of shit organization. They're ruthless in getting their money and whether you are downloading or purchasing, you are supporting them. How? You are spreading their work.
The worst part is that no judge has stopped them. What ever happened to the 'for the people' part of this country? The RIAA is for the people? What people? The ones getting sued for thousands when they don't have it or the ones getting the thousands to purchase fuel for their private jet?
I think people need to realize that the RI fucking AA is nothing without us. If we all stop buying their music they will fade away. In order for them to live, we have to continue to feed them. By downloading or purchasing music we are doing just that; feeding the beast. Let it starve and they'll be forced to figure out some other way to distribute their songs or quit while they're ahead.
Of course, this will all fall on deaf ears because as soon as the next article comes out we have to debate that. But hey, at least I tried something right?
The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
- Albert Einstein
That has a less emotive feel to it, doesn't it?
:)
You can argue about the merits of copyright, the merits of lawsuits against minors, the responsibilities of a parent to educate their child about obeying the law, but it sounds like the girl's done exactly what she's been accused of, and her mother is trying to get her off the hook. Fair enough. But next time we see someone rip off a GPL product and claim it as their own, no source available, I expect to see "FSF Sues Man Trying to Feed Family" or something equally 'balanced'...
Game dev and music blog
This arguement does not stand because once the person downloads the song, the copyright holder is deprived of the income the downloader would have paid for the song.
This claim does not hold.
Firstly, It has yet to be shown that RandomDownloaderX would have paid for it, rather than just never hearing it at all. RIAA propaganda, nothing more.
Secondly, unless the money or something tangible was IN their possession already, it is not theft (see below). They are not providing "services." By their own propaganda, they are selling "licenses to listen to music." Doing something without a license may be illegal, but is not theft.
Income is a thing. Theft also incompasses services. If you wish to play with strict interpretation: The original poster wished to know when he became a thief. A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property.
"Intellectual property" is a term invented by the people you're shilling for. It's not a real thing that can be removed from someone's posession, thus is not a valid target for "theft." "Income" is only such AFTER it is in the hands of the one earning it. Until that point, GP is right, it is "*potential* income," so unless the downloaders are reaching into the RIAA's pockets and pulling out wads of cash, they aren't committing "theft" there either.
At the moment all you are is a thief with (IMO) a piss-weak justification.
You want to wake up, son. These coke sniffing, hooker humping, lawyer loving, backhander taking, oozing cankers on the arse of humanity are threatening to take away a woman's child because she downloaded some MP3s. I don't know what you would call a strong justification. Maybe they should ritually defile her while chanting verses of the copyright law?
If these wee shites want to play hardball, I suggest that we return the favour. Hire a private detective or five to take pictures of them on their weekends. Track down the mistresses, the drug connections, the dirty laundry. Filter through their trash. Compile a tasty dossier on each and every one of them, and the record company execs, too. It can't be that hard. And then, well, downloaded music will be the very least of their worries.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
It seems to me that the RIAA is only the enemy because they are the face of the body which has made it inconvenient to steal music. I think the majority of people who are hopping on the "I Hate The RIAA!" bandwagon are forgetting some crucial information. The RIAA is a trade organization. They represent MEMBERS of that organization. They are suing on behalf of their members, not on behalf of themselves. They're not the top of the chain, they are in the middle of the chain. The artists who join, support, and ask the RIAA to represent them are the ones at the top.
If someone gets sued by the RIAA it's not because the RIAA wants to sue them, it's because the artist they represent wants them to. Because Britney Spears, Metallica, or whoever else has, in essence, asked them to do it. Maybe the artists don't directly demand it in most cases, but they did indirectly demand it at the point they signed with a record company which was a member of the RIAA.
Money speaks louder than words. No matter how many people say they don't like the RIAA, there are still billions of dollars being given to the artists which essentially confirms the artists belief that they joined the right label. That in turn confirms the label's belief that joining the RIAA was the right decision. Everyone out there who is buying music from RIAA members is telling the RIAA that they're doing a great job. The RIAA has been around for over 50 years, and the public has happily given them money hand-over-fist. It's only now that people got a taste of convenient, on-demand, free music that people have a problem with them. 20 years ago, no one was crying foul. Everyone knew that bootleg tapes were illegal, and most people copied tapes for their friends, but if you got into the business of moving massive numbers of bootleg tapes, no one was going to blink twice when you got pinched. But now that people are using the same concept in digital space, it has somehow become the moral highground.
People can quibble all they want about the exact definition of theft. The simple fact is, we all know that when we download an mp3, it's theft. We just cross our fingers and hope that the RIAA is looking at someone else when we do it.
If you were a programmer, and you spent $25,000 of your own money and 6 months to develop an application, you try to sell it and you hear "Great program, I already have that." from 100,000 people, but you've only sold two copies at $20 each, are you going to think "At least they didn't steal it from me"? Of course not, because they DID steal it from you. 100,000 people have the fruits of your labor, and you've got $40 to show for it.
I know it doesn't seem like the same issue when you can tell yourself that the person you took the music from already has plenty of money, because we all know stealing is alright so long as your victim has more than you. Or you can tell yourself you weren't going to buy it anyway. Whatever you need to sleep.
"1. the copyright holder is deprived of the income the downloader would have paid for the song."
*Potential* income, and I would potentially own a Ferrari, if it wasn't for these meddling kids.
"2)Income is a thing...A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property".
When your copyright expires has the public domain stolen your intellectual property?
"Intellectual property" the phrase is just a soundbite designed to confuse the legal constructs of patent, copyright and trademark with that of possession.
"Repeatedly, the same individuals will decry violations of the GPL ( copyright infringement), then decry a group of people enforcing their copyright."
This infringment is by a legal minor, a legal minor is a legal minor because children are not considered capable of making clear rational decisions. GPL violations are not done by legal minors because legal minors can't enter into the GPL contract. Even if it was the same person, the situations are clearly not the same.
If you're making a case that my actions are immoral, unethical, and weakly justified. fair comment. They are.
I'm not motivated by ethics. I'm motivated by annoyance at the recording industry. I like depriving them of profit by downloading files for my use and that of my friends.
The decision to "reject and not consume" is the choice of a digital media freedom fighter. Moral and worthless to the bigger fight. I prefer the actions of a digital media terrorist. Sending USB hard drives and DVD-Rs packed with files around the country by DHL
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
That is why the grandparent refers to giving away the content, rather then getting it for yourself.
Furthermore, it is OK to not buy something, and the consequence is that you then cannot enjoy it's use. Although I also feel that "theft" is not an appropriate term, there are other instances where such an act is illegal.
Consider a joyride in the night. You take a car with a key you took somewhere. You drive it at a time the owner had no intention of driving it anyway, but without their consent. You fill up the tank and replace it. In the proces, you were seen and traced. You have "taken" nothing but have commited an illegal act. You did not buy or hire the car and therefore should not enjoy it's use.
(Lets asume for simplicity that the wear and tear on the car and the inability to use the car while you took it was compensated in filling up the tank with more gas than was in the car at the start, and state that no agreement was made whatsoever on the scenario between you and the owner)
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Actually, the law explicitly grants us the right to resell the music we buy. In fact, the law (upon a cursory reading) doesn't appear to discount electronic copies of music (such as music downloaded from iTMS), and the law also states that we are entitled to resell said music, which means that someone might actually have a legal case to force Apple to open up some mechanism for us to resell the music we buy from them.
It's theft in the same way that declining to pay for, say, your haircut, is theft of services; and it is indeed illegal. Check section 2319 here, the bit titled "Criminal infringement of copyright."
So we should assume for simplicity that your arguement is relevant when it isn't? No thanks.
Can anybody explain to me, again, why I should be all up in arms over the RIAA going after infringers? I was much more upset when the RIAA went after the mother; I think it's kind of unreasonable to expect anyone to control someone's Internet access to the point that no illegal exchange of material can be performed. Much better to go after the infringers themselves.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I'm not a laywer, so what this looks like is:
RIAA wants to sue teenage girl and her Mother.
Mother says you can't sue me, I had nothing to do with it.
RIAA can't sue teenage girl, too young.
RIAA asks court to appoint a fake mother (Guardian) that they can sue?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
No. The point is that when you sit down to get a haircut you enter into a contract to pay for it and therefore the barber has a right to expect to be paid. This isn't the case when it comes to music/movies/software creators. They make what they create freely available and then demand payment without entering into a contract with anyone. Besides which, even in our theoretical barber case it's still not theft. It's a breach of contract.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Yeah, and also add "downloading stuff without paying for it is OK because the product sucks and I wouldn't buy anyway."
But if it sucks so bad, why are people downloading it in the first place.
So by that same token, theft of services isn't theft unless the service was rendered for you, and you alone as an individual? That's so weak. Suppose your barber works for a chain and gets paid by the hour. He's not cutting your hair for "you specifically," and since he's paid either way, your running off doesn't mean "his time was spent for naught." But your running off without paying is still theft.
Now suppose a musician, a producer, a team of sound engineers, cover artists, a couple talent scouts, and the management to put them all together each contribute a little bit towards a great new album they expect you to pay for, but then you go and download it for free with LimeWire. How is that not theft, too?
Can I ask, unrelatedly, about your feelings toward the term "identity theft"?
Haha, I love how people will debate to no end whether it's theft or not. As if it's morally okay, as long as nobody is allowed to call it theft.
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
That is all cool and well, but in no way changes the fact that your previous statement is false.
Many people (I am not going to argue if it is the majority or not) who download stuff illegally, also buy music, and will even buy the exact music they downloaded. The consequence is that arguing that illegal downloads (see, I do call them illegal) always result in loss of income for record companies is wrong, and there are in fact signs that the opposite is true.
Stop confusing the issue by just dragging in new and unrelated things, the fact that a legal service exists that allows this in no way changes the consequences of illegal downloads, it merely gives an alternative for those who can use it.
Oh, and give me a break, I have to pay for record companies doing their promotion? I thought that that promotion is what they claim they need al this money for, so a sampling service that actually costs money is bullshot.
>Tell me again, since when copyright infringement became theft?
.to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" The First Congress implemented this copyright provision with The Copyright Act of 1790. It granted authors the right to print, re-print, or publish their work for a period of fourteen years, renewable for another fourteen years. The law was meant to provide an incentive to authors, artists, and scientists to create original works by providing creators with a monopoly. At the same time, the monopoly was limited in order to stimulate creativity and the advancement of "science and the useful arts" through wide public access to works in the "public domain." http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
>> Whenever it deals with something under the GPL being infringed.
No, violation of the GPL is not theft - it is violation of a gentleperson's agreement to give back what you take. Mainly, it is commercial and closed-source exploitation of ideas that belong to everyone that has given to the project in question. So people get angry because their work is being used counter to an agreement while simultaneously being denied access to closed source information based on their collective work. That's exactly why Stallman wanted the GPL in the first place. You have to play nice.
Bringing up the GPL specifically raises the issues of commercial versus non-commercial exploitation of ideas, and I think it's useful to think about those things.
When congress created copyrights in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, they did so with the following limitations: "the Congress shall have power . .
Okay, so let's get this nice and tidy.
1. The idea of copyrights doesn't exist by itself, separate from the legal entity that creates it - in our case copyrights are very closely linked to certain ideas in the U.S. Constitution, ideas like the "public domain" and the promotion of science and the useful arts.
2. Copyrights were originally intended to secure monopolistic commercial rights to a given work for 14 years, at which time it could be renewed (presumably if the copyright was understood to still be commercially useful) for another 14 years.
3. When a copyright lapsed, the work in question entered the public domain so that the ideas that had proven useful could stimulate creativity and advancements in science and the "useful arts."
We are living in a world where this careful balancing act of competing ideas and needs as originally intended has utterly collapsed in favor of meeting the needs of the deathless and psychopathic "persons" we call corporations, which now have most of the rights of individuals and some we never dreamed of attaining (like the possibility of virtual immortality as enjoyed by the likes of Lloyd's). It makes sense to a deathless entity like a corporation to want copyrights to be extended nearly forever if it can get those kinds of rights legislated on its behalf - and it turns out that it can. U.S. Congress works for the lootocracy that gets it reelected and not for you and not for the public domain.
But what about the public domain? The sad fact is...
WHEN YOU GRANT COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR,
YOU TAKE FROM THE COMMONS.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163846&cid =13682728
So there are real victims here. We are ALL OF US the victims of corporate control when overweening corporate desires become untenable. When the corporation overreaches with copyrights, it denigrates the well-intentioned purpose behind copyrights and foments disrespect for the law.
THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE DOWNLOADING - THEY DON'T RESPECT THE LAWS CONCERNING COPYRIGHTS AS THEY ARE WRITTEN AND ENFORCED RIGHT NO
They make what they create freely available and then demand payment without entering into a contract with anyone.
The fact is that, they do not make it freely available. Lets see, how did that Britney Spears album got to Piratebay?, well, somebody surely bought it, so, he entered into a contract with the copyright holders where they allowed him to use the INTELECTUAL PROPERTY (not the "hardware" or plastic) for his own personal use.
Thus, he VIOLATED the contract (infringing the copyright) by uploading and seeding the torrents.
Now, for everyone that downloaded the music, I believe, they were doing anything wrong, BUT if they are uploading at the same time [as in all current p2p sharing protocols] then they are again distributing the Intellectual property.
You should read the small letters on the CD booklet that you bought (if you buy any), they say something like "it is prohibited the partial or total distribution by any means or channels blah blah".
Now, of course according to US laws, it does not matters if the people that downloaded the intelectual property didn't "entered into a contract", they still CAN NOT distribute the Intelectual property, which right to copy [hence it is called copyright] is property of the creator (or the music house).
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Just a few quick definitions before my response:
Intellectual Propert - A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.
Theft - The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
Stealing - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Add them up, you have your theft of intellectual property. While the lawyers of the world probably use infringement more often then anything else, theft is something the lowly masses actually understand and don't always need to have explained to them. BTW, all these definitions brought to you by. dictionary.com.
"Intellectual property" is a term invented by the people you're shilling for.
Actually not really. Intellectual property is a term used by a great many people to cover well, all of intellectual property. This include patents. It should be noted the legal system does treat patents, which fall under the IP category, at the same weight as physical property. So since, Copyrights are also intellectual property are they not allowed to carry the same weight? Am I not allowed to own the rights and ideas behind what I invent and/or write.
It's not a real thing that can be removed from someone's posession, thus is not a valid target for "theft."
Once again another one of those great fallacies. It can be removed from someone's possession. It can be sold outright from one person to another. It can be inherited through an estate and it can be stolen everytime the patent or copyright is infringed upon. You said that the RIAA propaganda has said that person X who illegally downloads would have paid for content Y. You argue that person X just may never hear content Y. Let's look at the ways to possible hear content:
1. CD's and cassettes (if they still exist) that you purchase at the store.
2. Legally Downloaded music from a store like iTunes.
3. Television and Radio with the host of radio stations and the few television radio stations.
4. Illegally downloaded music.
Now if our fictional person X (and more importantly the multitudes of persons X) is downloading music and not listening to the radio or watching MTV (or VH1 or whomever), they are collectively hurting ratings for stations and networks. This costs these individuals ad revenue. Now without having ad revenue they can then effectively go under and cut a source of the income from the RIAA.
We can follow back an almost equally twisted chain back with any of the other money making elements above. However, it items 1-3 money gets back to the RIAA, in element 4 it does not. This means that the RIAA is being deprived of income. Your argument that the RIAA uses propaganda to state that person X would have paid for content Y starts to lose footing. The argument used by many P2P individuals has been contested many times and the "studies" to back it up are typically anything BUT scientific. You know the one. The one that states that downloaders are more likely to purchase a CD.
To be honest, I HATE THE RIAA. I cannot possibly scream that any louder. What I hate equally as much is the people who try to treat this idea of intellectual property theft as fallacy. The reason the RIAA doesn't file criminal charges against these people is because then you wind up sending your user base to prison where they are worthless. You also would be EVEN MORE villified for doing so. If the theft of intellectual property was not considered a crime, the counterfeiters and large piracy individuals (I am talking about the people that get content A, B, C and more to us.) would not be charged with crimes where the penalties are tantamount to actual theft.
So to re-hash, the courts and legal system seem to be against you when it comes to this idea of the actual quality of property t
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
i don't see how P2P services are much different from a second-hand CD store.
take the following hypothetical situation---
a second hand CD store receives CD's that people no longer want. they then turn around and sell each CD for some value, which could be as little as 1. the person who buys the cd, goes home and copies the music onto their computer, then donates the CD back to the second hand store....repeat
or is a person supposed to delete all copies/duplicates of a cd after they get rid of the original?
I don't care if it's "theft", piracy, or fucking murder anymore.
Not one more cent is going into the pockets of the industry from me.
And I guess if I photocopy some pages from a book at the library/bookstore, that's theft too?
Since I have it, should have purchased it, but didn't.
One of the defining concepts of current tort law is that anyone can sue anyone for anything. Legally, I can sue my neighbor for mowing his lawn every 10 days instead of every seven (and this has actually happened.) Legally, I can sue my workplace for having beige cubicle walls instead of gray. I could even sue the city for having a name that has too many letters in it. Patently ridiculous, and no lawyer in their right mind (and IANAL) would take that case, but technically I do have the right to a legal forum to address my grievances.
So the RIAA has every right to sue anyone for what they perceive to be damaging to their ability to conduct their business. Whether the suit has merit or not is another matter completely. The RIAA is forcing settlements in these cases not by a preponderance of evidence (as they would in a court of law) but because the defendants cannot afford to mount a defense.
Interestingly, these cases have not been as successful in the UK (by their equivalent to the RIAA) because in their legal system, if you sue someone and lose, you are responsible for the costs incurred by the defendant in mounting a defense. Tends to curtail lawsuits to cases that actually have merit.
And seriously, "potential income," wtf is that. The RIAA is omnipotent now? They have a crystal ball that can predict the future? It is possible that they are losing sales to piracy. It's also possible that nobody would ever buy a CD ever again, for whatever reason. (It's also possible that monkeys would fly out of my butt. Improbable != impossible.) Their profits are contingent on sales. Sales can't be predicted to a certianty sufficient to stand up in court; it would follow logically that sales to a particular subset of the general population (in this case, people who download digital copies of copyrighted works) cannot be predicted either.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
We have:
theft...criminal
copyright infringement...civil
So:
Murder = criminal and jail time
Theft = criminal and jail time
Running a protection racket = criminal and jail time
Copyright infringement = civil no jail time
You can not talk about copyright infringement as "theft" because it is not a criminal offense.
vi +
``If you happen to come across a site that allows you to download music for free without any hassle, it is the same as if you found it on the street.''
If that means that downloading music you found on the web should be legal, I agree with you. So does my government, and many others (I live in the Netherlands). Apparently, the RIAA feels that people who download music are breaking the law, or they wouldn't be suing them. The courts will decide whether the RIAA's cases have any merit. (There is a separate issue of you losing no matter if you win the case, but that's for another time.)
``What the RIAA needs to do is go after the services like they did Napster. What is so damn different about what the RIAA did to Napster that they cannot do to these other services?''
Napster was maintaining a centralized directory of the music that was being shared. Thus, Napster had the ability to detect and prevent the sharing of certain materials. These days, services don't host central directories anymore, which means it's all down to the sharers among themselves. The RIAA has been unsuccessful in convincing courts that these services can be blamed for what users do with them, and thus has to go after the users.
It makes perfect sense to me that the RIAA has to go after the people who share the music. After all, it's those people who are distributing the material, and they are breaking the law if they do so without the consent of the copyright holder. The services are not doing anything illegal (as far as I can see).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
what exactly do I get when I spend the $15 for the CD?
A pretty plastic disc, and the limited right to enjoy the music contained on it subject to a hefty list of conditions, restrictions, and the random whim of the content owner.
Or, to put it another way, they get to have their cake AND anally rape you.
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
First of all, I really wish somebody would file a class-action suit against those RIAA nitwits and end it all once and for all. Really, this is not acceptable. The technology of the 21st century does bring up issues regarding intellectual rights, and I do believe that an appropriate balance will eventually be struck, but a bunch of people acting like thugs simply don't help matters.
Second, there seems to be a lot of confusion about how copyright infringement hurts authors and creators. It does hurt them, but not in the way that most people have posted here, and not in the way that the RIAA is contending. Here's how it works:
I'm an author (this is true). Now, let's say that Tor Books buys the manuscript that I've had on one of the editor's desks. At this point in time, I sign a contract with them. The contract states that Tor has exclusive rights to publish the book for a certain period of time, at which point the publication rights revert back to me. In return, Tor will give me an advance on royalties, and a royalty for each copy they sell.
So, the book goes into print. Now, let's say that somebody with far too much time on their hands and a piratical disposition scans the entire novel into their computer and uploads it onto their site for people to download. And let's say that 1,000 people download it (it's a nice round number). Well, those people may or may not have bought the book on their own if it wasn't available for download - they may or may not buy the book because of the download. But, the fact remains that there are now 1,000 unsanctioned copies floating around. Odds are that the lion's share of the people who downloaded won't actually buy the thing (hell, they might not even finish reading it). But, those 1,000 copies (and we're only talking about the electronic copies here), had they been distributed through legimate channels, would have generated royalties for the author, making it easier for me to buy food and keep a roof over my head, and making it easier for me to write my next book.
The size of the damage is very difficult to estimate, simply because no money is actually changing hands. Yes, people who would have bought the book won't now that they have a free copy. But, other people who might not have bought the book otherwise might just use the download as a sample, and decide that they really want the book on their shelf. Well, some damage is probably done - but it's also probably fairly minimal. Until somebody actually does some solid academic research into the numbers, nobody will be able to tell. And, to make matters even more cloudy, not that many people actually have the technological know-how to download the thing anyway - the majority of readers will just go to the bookstore. That's a similar situation to what the RIAA is looking at.
Now, let's change the scenario a bit. The book comes out, and somebody with a piratical disposition scans the book into his computer, and then posts it on the Internet. But, this time, he charges $3.00 per download. And let's say that there are 1,000 copies downloaded. So now you've got money changing hands, just like a book sale. And, not only is the publisher that I actually gave the rights to print the book being cut out of the deal (and basically being competed against using its own product), no royalties are coming my way for any of these books that are sold. THAT is where the serious damage is done, and from the news I've read, it's done by criminal organizations and groups in third world countries.
Now, who is actually the pirate here? Well, it's not the people who downloaded, truth be told, even if they paid for it. It's unfortunate that they aren't downloading/buying a legitimate copy, but that also raises the question of how they can tell if a copy is legitimate or not. Let's face it - most people don't have that great an understanding of the Berne Convention, and if a copyright notice appears somewhere, they might assume that it is legitimate, even if there are signs it
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
out of business.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
you have still violated copyright and that is wrong
I believe that is the key issue - and while I personally agree with you, I can see the other position. Government is by the people, for the people, and of the people - and it is legitimate (albiet dangerous) to disobey laws that you consider immoral. I would definately consider using laws to prop up an entity that sue children immoral - but I think the lesser of two evils is still to maintain copyright laws (not the DMCA, mind you) and civil order.
But I guess to some people, music is more important than an ordered society - mainly young people! (Ah, youth!)
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Ummm, violating copyright is not "wrong". It is simply illegal.
Don't confuse morality with legality. Their separation is at the core of our legal system's methods for making itself fair and impartial--the rule of law evaluated by balanced minds.
That said, I don't think the existing copyright regime is morally justifiable either.
My copying of another's work costs them nothing, it's not like stealing their car. You do not have a right to be reimbursed by what you percieve to be an opportunity cost. Simply put, the opportunity wasn't there. Legislating to create value where there is otherwise none is an abuse of law and government, plain and simple. This is obviously not "theft".
Once you make something public, you lose control over it. Copyright used to balance the public's interests with yours by giving you limited protection. As usual it seems people have extrapolated this to mean that it's a "right", that they're "entitled to", that duplicating "intellectual property" is theft, and basically missing that loss of control of published works is a fact of life.
Current law extends some copyrights to the author's lifetime plus ninety years. Current law protects "work for hire" more than work you do for yourself. Current law doesn't limit copyright protection once the work is no longer owned by its creator. It is not balanced and blatantly designed to turn information into a commodity.
This has nothing to do with your rights. This has everything to do with Disney keeping their mouse. Just face that in the world of modern publishing, the original terms of copyright might actually be too long. If you can't make your money off of your work in five to ten years, I don't find anything that compels me to keep it out of the public domain. I think that this has benefits beyond compilations of Back Street Boys songs and old women trading cookbooks. How different would your world be if Microsoft Windows 95 had just gone into the public domain in 2005 (not necessarily the source, just the binary even)? We're increasingly giving people (and unfortunately corporations) more control over one another when we should be doing the opposite.
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
You may often say one thing when you meant another but courts and the legal system don't work that way. For some of us this proper usage and understanding of such terminology is important. Copyrights are the primary protection for our free-software and open-source works (BSD license, GPL, etc).
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Not one more cent is going into the pockets of the industry from me.
Which would be fine, if you'd actually be willing to back up your "principles" with some actual sacrifice. Otherwise, you're just an overpriveliged whiner who's trying to rationalize grabbing something valuable without paying.
If you want to fight it, fight it, but I'd put fair money down that your exasperated tone is more a product of consistently defending and rationalizing your illegal downloading (be it theft, theft of services, infringement, whatever) than the weariness that comes from championing your cause legitimately.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
The problem that the RIAA faces is proving damages. A good lawyer would point out that each instance costs about 2 bucks off (less, if you consider iTunes cut) of iTunes. So to it to be 'thousands', the person being sued would have to be proven to have downloaded 1000 or more songs.
Now, if the RIAA says that the user is also liable for everyone who downloaded from them, that would be Shared-Liability. So we go to a buck per song, since we are talking about actual damages. They would have to prove that people downloaded a portion of the song from the person. On distributed P2P networks, they would have to share liability across everyone that someone downloaded from.
If the RIAA said that because of the person, 5k people downloaded the song, which would of been 5k purchases of said song, then they could not go after the 5k people since for the full amount of each instance of the song, since the RIAA would sued for the full amount from the first person.
I support the RIAA's right to sue someone who illegally downloaded a song, for justifiable liabilities, which would be the current market value of 1 song, as paid to them via iTunes, per unique MP3 downloaded. Add to that legal fees and punitive damages. Lets say it is 50c per song, that would make 500 songs worth $250 + legal fees + punitive damages. Subtract the costs generated by non-reimbursable legal fees, costs from trying to find the P2Pers in the first place, costs from negative market image, etc... It takes a lot of songs to pay for one law-suit. They cannot sue for COGS to cover CD production, they could sue for CDs that were not (and never will be sold), if they could prove that a. the CDs will never be sold and b. that the person was responsible for the cds not to be sold. Personally, I think the RIAA has a piss poor business plan to resolve this issue.
In God we trust, all others require data.
Its not going to do any good.
When people stop buying from RIAA labels, the labels are going to go to the government screaming piracy because they can show what they think the numbers should be they will blaim the loss of revenue from piracy. There will be no consideration of a Boycott. Then congress will start taxing things like burnable CD, digital media players, to make up for the lost revenue due to piracy. They've already tried to have laws passed allowing them to break into people's computers so they can investigate music piracy.
You're indies labels will be forced to start supporting the RIAA as well, because the equipment they use to press the CDs can be used to press pirate CD, the RIAA will demand a tax or surchange there. If they have them pressed overseas they will find a way of getting revenue from that too.
You reall want to stop the RIAA? You need laws like RICO, and Sherman Anti-trust. You need lots of independent lawsuits to bankrupt them. The RIAA and MPAA are predatory cartels, if you want to stop them boycotts aren't going to do squat, you have to sue them into oblivion.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
...inflammatory and biased feel to it. It is the sort of headline you would see from "news" outlets in Cuba or China. In a world with a more free and responsible press, reputable journalists refrain from calling ANYONE guilty until they are judged so in a court of law. Until that point they are CHARDED WITH or ACCUSED or ALLEGEDLY commited a crime, even when the facts available to the public seem plainly obvious. Strictly speaking, the headline "RIAA Sues Guilty Person" is not only inflammatory in nature it is technically a lie--this girl is not guily in the eyes of the law because she has never been charged and sentenced with anything, so save such rhetoric until RIAA wins its case against her.
/. article, "RIAA Suea a Child" is not overly inflammatory nor is it factually inaccurate. I think it is perfectly suitable without being too general. What would you have the article title say? "RIAA Sues a person"? "RIAA Sues an Alleged Music Pirate"? How would this differentiate the story from the thousands of other cases RIAA has chased--I mean, it seems that most of RIAA's activities centre around outrageous litigation and getting into the pockets of politicians. Facts are facts--RIAA found evidence of copyright violation that they believe point to a 14 year old child, and the evidence is fairly convincing. The fact that an industrial cartel has decided the proper course of action is to SUE A MINOR for obscene amounts of money is the whole point of the article, otherwise it wouldn't be news--just another pirate getting taken down.
/. readers don't seem to know what it is. If RIAA wanted to teach a lesson wouldn't there be an easier way of doing it, like getting a court order to seize her computer for a period of time and remove all the MP3s before returning it? At least they could teach her copyright violation is wrong and let her voluntarily make amends? No. Even when their targets agree to participate RIAA will not listen until they have gotten their money. RIAA's actions have definitely proven that they are not doing this to defend what is right. RIAA is doing this to increase revenue first, and "make an example" second--then somewhere down the list is education and innovation. This is not a biased opinion, it is a conclusion that can be supported by RIAAs behaviour.
As far as the title of this
As for ripping off a man trying to "feed his family" by ripping off a GPL product...well, the same copyright rules apply and if RIAA can sue a child then the FSF is well within their right to sue a man with a starving family. However I don't believe the FSF has ever done that nor ever will do something of that nature. If some enterprising 14-year-old started making money of software derived from a GPL project the FSF's first concern wouldn't be to "make an example" of a child by extorting his money--it would be to make sure he divulges the source code to the derivative project. I would support such action.
Really, your argument makes no sense whatsoever and doesn't seem insightful at all. The article isn't titled "RIAA sues innocent little girl" or "RIAA threatens teenager". The simple facts make it hard to title the article otherwise. That is the point of the article--western society is generally reasonable and gives first time offenders under 18 a bit of a break. Children are not sentenced with the same terms as an adult unless the circumstances are severe. RIAA, however, has decided to wield its legal resources as a blunt instrument without regard to reason or even accuracy in some cases. What is the point of suing a teenage girl over copyright violations when she probably didn't even know what copyright was? Hell, most
Someone who is infringing copyright says it's not theft because the copyright holder still has the original material so they are doing no harm because they have deprived no-one of anything.
That's a fun jump. It's not theft because there is no taking. That doesn't mean there is no harm. If I burn down your house, that's arson, not theft, and I have harmed you.
Damages in the copyright realm are easy to compute, and no one denies the very concept. Still, it's not theft. It's some other offense.
They are violating the basic principles of capitalist economics
Copyrights are government granted monopolies on commodity goods. That's hardly capitalistic. Of course, this just goes to show, again, that capitalism in its raw form is not all that useful.
There is no moral high ground here
I would disagree slightly. Generally, I think that copyright is amoral. However, it is moral to spread creative works and to use them fruitfully. Copyright holders are opposed to this, and wish to keep knowledge under lock and key, portioning a little out only to those who can pay for it, and who are limited as to what they can do with it.
So if anyone is at all moral, it's pirates. But mostly I stick with the amoral approach.
a reasonable balance between rightsholders and the public
The concept of a balance is a big mistake. There should be no balance. Copyright law should always favor the public. This doesn't mean abolishing it, necessarily, as some limits on the public can in fact be beneficial to them, but it does mean that the interests of rightsholders should never be considered save as a means to serving the infinitely more important interests of the public.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I (or my assigns), however, AM the only source for books written on PHP by me
Sure, but you seem to be getting into trademark territory with all this talk of sources.
I'm just saying that the creative work, which is intangible, can be fixed into tangible copies. And all of those copies of the same work are essentially commodities. There is no material difference between your book printed by you, and your book printed by me. This should force us into competition, and our prices should drop to marginal cost plus whatever profit we can manage.
Instead, with copyright, you can eliminate competition and raise prices for copies of your work higher than they would be otherwise.
but it's an attempt by an enlightened society to recognize that we're better off providing incentives for people to create. If everything is stolen the second it's produced, simply because distribution costs are zero, then there's actually a negative incentive to create those items, especially since creation costs are definitely not zero.
It's not a negative incentive, it's just no incentive. And it's not the only incentive. Lots of people make stuff without regard for profit derived from copyright -- they're interested in reputation, or expressing themselves, or entertaining others, or have other sources of funding, and so on.
And there's one other thing.
A balance needs to be maintained between creators and consumers, and the rights and needs of both sides need to be respected.
This is wrong. There should be no balance, and no respect for creators, at least for its own sake.
Enlightened or not, copyright is a utilitarian construct. It's not a charity (and if it were, it's a lousy one). The public doesn't want to provide incentives for creation because it's nice. It wants to benefit from it. It wants to maximally benefit from it. This may involve some benefits for authors in the course of serving the public interest. But such authorial benefits are not the goal of the system. They're just means to an end. Authors should get nothing, save that it benefits the public. That's not balance and it's not respect. Copyright is a way to exploit authors, just as the proverbial carrot on a stick is a way to exploit the donkey pulling a load.
You need to think more about why society would be interested in creation, and what else is interested in, and how it can best exploit artists to get the most of what it wants for the least possible cost.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Well giving them money certainly won't help. DO NOT BUY FROM THE RIAA. Check RIAA radar before purchasing.
When people stop buying from RIAA labels, the labels are going to go to the government screaming piracy because they can show what they think the numbers should be they will blaim the loss of revenue from piracy. There will be no consideration of a Boycott. Then congress will start taxing things like burnable CD, digital media players, to make up for the lost revenue due to piracy. They've already tried to have laws passed allowing them to break into people's computers so they can investigate music piracy.
Congress only listens as long as the bribe money keeps coming. Do not fund RIAA lobbyists by buying from RIAA labels.
You're indies labels will be forced to start supporting the RIAA as well, because the equipment they use to press the CDs can be used to press pirate CD, the RIAA will demand a tax or surchange there. If they have them pressed overseas they will find a way of getting revenue from that too.
Indies don't need plastic. They have internet distribution. All the indies need is a paypal.
You reall want to stop the RIAA? You need laws like RICO, and Sherman Anti-trust. You need lots of independent lawsuits to bankrupt them. The RIAA and MPAA are predatory cartels, if you want to stop them boycotts aren't going to do squat, you have to sue them into oblivion.
That requires money be spent on lawyers and bribing congressmen. If you decide to take that route, please use proceeds saved by not buying RIAA albums to do so. You might want to pool your resources with others by donating it to someone like the EFF as well.
DO NOT BUY FROM THE RIAA. Check RIAA radar before purchasing.
And as other posters have pointed out, the morality is completely orthogonal to the legality of the action. It is illegal whether or not it is classified as theft. Since we are talking about a legal issue, we should at least be clear about which law we are referring to! Thus, we should be careful not to say the word "theft" - which is why so many people split hairs over it.
Is copyright infringement even a criminal offense, or is it simply a contract violation?
I only use the word "guilty" here because the mother has basically admitted that her daughter did exactly what the lawsuit alleges.
/. article pointed to a fairly unprofessional piece of writing. I am all for a sensible point of view. That said, RIAA has clearly demonstrated it is NOT a sensible organisation. Like a typical cartel, it demonstrates a complete lack of sense and concern for anyhting that is outside its immediate interests.
The fact the child was implicated by her mother is indeed valid evidence in support of RIAA's case, but from a journalistic point of view calling the child a "Guilty Person" could be considered hearsay. Being implicated by another party doesn't mean someone is guilty. Hell, even a confession by the accused herself doesn't always mean the accused is guilty. That is why the media generally is very careful about throwing around the word "guilty" or calling a murder suspect a "murderer" even if the evidence appears quite obvious.
Get rid of the "think of the children!11!1" emotion from the situation, and look at it from a more sensible point of view
I agree wholeheartedly that the emotion around this issue contributes nothing to the debate, and the link in the
can someone tell me what recourse the RIAA *does* have when people infringe their copyright? And how is their pursuing such action in any meaningful way different to that of any other copyright holder or representative against an infringer?
Suing little girls, or any individual for that matter, for millions of dollars over music files just does not make sense. Even from the financial aspect alone the damages they ask for are orders of magnitude more than any demonstratable revenue loss. The punishment is simply not reasonable. In my opinion, a teen casually sharing music files is about as serious as a traffic ticket--it doesn't warrant the same kind of treatment as an executive bilking investors out of millions. Save those penalties for the mafia-associated pirates making millions from selling bootlegged MS Office, music and movie CDs.
It is also no more reasonable for RIAA to sue ISPs or software developers for enabling users to share files. There are legitimate uses of their technology and services and it is unreasonable for RIAA to force others to protect IP that isn't even theirs. If RIAA wants software developers and ISPs to help with enforcement they should put their money where their mouth is and offer to PAY MONEY to them for their services. That is the least RIAA can do given how they expect everyone to pay for their offerings.
Of course suing the actual violators is a viable option, however RIAA has been going about it very haphazardly and without reason. How productive is it to sue a teenager millions of dollars? What case can RIAA make to justify such obscene valuations apart from 'x' songs found on a p2p network at $750 a piece? They've also done next to nothing to verify that a given IP address or P2P acocunt name belongs to a specific individual. Some of the accused have even offered to turn over their computers to forensic investigators to prove their innocence to RIAA, and RIAA refuses. I've heard of cases where people who did not know better left their wireless routers wide open, only to have the neighbours' kids or warpathers on the street suck gigabytes of music through their internet connection.
RIAA could also pursue other routes to combat P2P piracy. They could try pursuing non-monetary remedies as I mentioned before to seize the offending materials from people and restricting their use of the internet--in most cases 1st time offenses should be handled more lightly. RIAA could also do more to educate the public about copyright law--it isn't fair to convict someone for something they were not entirely aware was illegal. Right now RIAA and MPAA do next to NOTHING on the education front. That they DO contribute are stupid "public service" commercials that create furhter misunderstanding by making a no
I fail to see why you, who has done nothing at all, should be allowed to profit from my labor
Why not? If you are my neighbor, and your house is really nice, and you have a great garden and yard, it will increase the value of my property just due to the proximity. Plus, I get the benefit of the smell of the flowers, and the nice view, the services of pollinating insects attracted by your garden but who might also go to mine, and so on.
Just because you did something doesn't mean it's all yours.
Especially since we are not talking about profiting from your labor so much as profiting from the fruits of your labor. I cannot force you to labor. If you want to write a book or not, that's up to you. If you want to sell copies to people, that's up to you. I can benefit from the end product, however, if it has left your control.
Creative works are fruits of labor, and through the vast majority of history, have been unprotected. Copyright is a rather new idea, and sets up some artificial benefits for you. That you like those benefits doesn't make them any less artificial or subject to change as the public as a whole sees fit for their own purposes.
In fact, labor is an especially funny thing to talk about here, since copyright doesn't care about labor. Hard work does not make something copyrightable; it is creativity and originality that are required, even if the work was trivial.
Authors should get nothing
That's not what I said. What I said was "Authors should get nothing, save that it benefits the public."
Let me illustrate this. You said: So, should I make the investment, the current system gives me the potential to benefit from it. Notice the words "invest" and "potential" in the prior sentence. Creation of a book, music, movie, or program entails risk. I'm making an investment in it, because I think it's going to be worth it.
I agree. You are acting in a self-interested fashion. I have no problem with that. It's predictable and makes you easy to exploit. But you cannot fault anyone else for acting in their own self interest either!
The public as a whole is self interested. It wants two things: First, for all the works that might be created to be created. Second, to be subject to no limits as to how it enjoys these works.
Without copyright, the first interest is satisfied partially, but not much. The second interest is totally satisfied. Copyright is a way of spending a little bit of the satisfaction of the second interest to get a much larger amount of satisfaction of the first interest back.
So if we created a copyright that lasted for one year, you would see a lot of works get created that otherwise would not be created, and only a minor impairment of public enjoyment of those works. The net result is greater public satisfaction than without copyright at all.
The fact that artists receive some benefit is interesting, but it's not the point. Dairy cows get to live comfortable lives, but no one cares; we just want the milk. Bees get to increase their numbers and live in comfortable hives placed conveniently close to flowers, but no one cares; we just want the honey. Donkeys get to eat carrots, but no one cares; we just want to make them pull a wagonload of carrots to the market.
Artists might get some money for their work, but no one cares. We just want them to create stuff and get it into the public domain (with minimal copyright until it is in the public domain).
This requires that authors be subject to exploitation, and that we tailor the system so that we get the most bang for our buck, i.e. not granting too little copyright or too much. But whether any artist succeeds or fails is below notice.
So when you write your book, the greatest possible reward you ought to get should be the least possible reward that still is an incentive to you to write the book. More would be wasteful, and no one cares about your feelings on the subject. As it is difficult to tailor things to each artist individu
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You seem to repeat this an awful lot - that everyone on Slashdot does and says so and so. As if Slashdotters were a single entity. They aren't. They are different people with different opinions.
Apologies if I have shattered your illusions yet again :)
Clever signature text goes here.
Income is only deprived if the person receiving the "free" copy would have paid for it in the first place had they not been able to get the free copy. I would love to see someone argue that a 14 year old kid with $10,000 "worth" of songs would have paid $10,000 for them had they not been able to download.
I can't find a real argument in here anywhere. Consider the set of songs valued at $10000. Obviously, the 14 year old kid values the music somewhat, or they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of downloading it in the first place. Therefore, the kid acquired the songs for free, when the kid thought that they had inherent worth (even if it might be as low as a small fraction of a cent for the lot of them). Just because the kid believes the songs are horribly overpriced is no good reason to take them without paying (common theft). If the kid has no sufficient funds to acquire them at the current prices, that is still no good reason to take them (see common theft again -- we aren't talking life/death here). We are therefore left with the logical conclusion that the kid believes that the songs have some real fiscal value, but has circumvented the owner / distributor rights and acquired them for nothing. I see no way to ethically justify this.
Clearly arguing that the kid would have paid $10K for the songs if they weren't available for download is unlikely to succeed, but that's just an argument against the cost of the owner/distributor's sale prices relative to the likely fiscal resources of the 14 year old -- I argue that the kid feels that having those songs is worth $Q, and by downloading them freely, they have defrauded the owners of the media out of at least that value.
There is no inherent right to earn income from a creative work, and that is not the intention of copyright law. For example, this post I am writing is actually a creative work, and usually something like this is automatically copyrighted under the law. Should you guys pay me?
I am no copyright law expert, so I appeal to what I believe is a universal human concept -- that if someone invests personal resources (time / money / something else) to produce something, they deserve (at least partial) ownership and control of that which is produced, probably in some rational proportion to their own investment. The point of this entire debate is not whether or not we should pay you to read your postings, but rather, if you insisted that we did pay you to read your post, and we read it anyway without your permission, that you have lost something that common sentiment is you were reasonably entitled to. Just because it is easy to replicate your efforts doesn't mean that you deserve to lose control over them, unless you voluntarily give up those rights (as you do when posting to slashdot, according to the terms of use for the site).
I recognize I have committed a cardinal sin in mixing common sense and law, but I hope I can someday be forgiven.
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.