Warner CEO Admits His Kids Stole Music

IAmTheDave writes "Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman admitted that he was fairly certain that one or more of his children had downloaded music illegally, but despite this direct admission of guilt, no lawsuits are pending. Surprised? Bronfman insists that, after a stern talking-to, his children have suffered the full consequences of their actions. 'I explained to them what I believe is right, that the principle is that stealing music is stealing music. Frankly, right is right and wrong is wrong, particularly when a parent is talking to a child. A bright line around moral responsibility is very important. I can assure you they no longer do that.' I wonder if all of the people currently being sued/extorted can now just claim that they 'no longer do that.'"

Comments

All people are equal

[fluch]

Just some people are more equal than other.

Sounds familiar.

And not surprising.

Re:All people are equal

[PoloniumSandwich]

"Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?" - Animal Farm

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the US Supreme court, copyright infringement is not stealing. That is a fact. It is incorrect to refer to downloading music as "stealing music." They are not the same thing.

Whether or not it is morally acceptable is a matter of individual opinion, of course. Personally, I think that assuming control of other people's hardware so that you can force them to "play along" with your technologically absurd business model is morally wrong.

Duplicating data is morally neutral (again, IMO).

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest.
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law.
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court
and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
                    o Life Line, 1939 - Robert Heinlein

Re:All people are equal

[jZnat]

Preaching to the choir; most of us here know that there's a significant difference between copyright infringement and theft. Well, most of the people who read YRO at least.

Re:All people are equal

[mungtor]

"Duplicating data is morally neutral (again, IMO)."

Of course it is, since it is more convenient for you if it works that way.

Do you find not compensating artists for their work to be morally neutral as well?

Re:All people are equal

[MECC]

I think the point was that we the common folk get to surrender our life savings, educations, cars homes, etc., while the CEO gets off just giving his kids a stern talkning-to (okay, he's a CEO so it qualifies as worse that the talking-to I got as a kid).

The rest of us get to eat cake, it would seem.

Re:All people are equal

[quixote9]

Indeed. Why use RIAA's self-serving terminology? Consider the analogous situation in print media. You take a book out of the library. You read it. You return it. Royalties paid? None. Have you stolen something? Not in the wildest dreams of anyone except RIAA and their ilk. If downloads are for personal, temporary use, I don't see how they differ from checking a book out of the library. And I'd be willing to bet money that most songs have a pretty short shelf life on most people's ipods.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Or everyone gets sued the same? The CEO would still be ok.

The point is, that without a license to copy, you cannot copy. Period. And you are stealing. Not butter or bread or houses, but intellectual property. The idea that copyright infringement is not in the same criminal code as theft, well, probably because of historical reasons. The two are equivalent. Furthermore, copyright infringement becomes more and more important as intellectual property becomes more key to the economy.

For example, I would not want my GPL code to be stolen by some hack in India or US or Europe. Yes, stolen. GPL is to remain GPL. That is the license. Similarly for other software. And the same thing applies to music. While I agree that musicians would probably benefit by selling music to public directly though Internet and allow (it is up to them! NOT you!) you to copy their intellectual property as a form of advertisement (or goodwill!). But that choice is with them, not you. You steal it, you should pay for the theft.

Anyone that disagrees with basic premise of copyright protection is the reason why companies and individuals waste resources to lock up their property with DRM. Congratulations!!

If you are completely clueless, think about intellectual property as a book. You buy the book. You CANNOT copy it verbatum and sell or or give it away. Period. You can share it, but when you have lent it, you DO NOT have access to it! You can share music, but you do not have access to it when someone else has access to it. "Sharing" it *through* copying is what is against the law.

Of course, this will get modded down by some yahoos that do not udnerstand more than l33t and h4x3r. They are also one of the major reason for DRM is here.

Re:All people are equal

[Salvance]

Yeah, and I'm sure the end of the speech went something like this: "Now bobby and amy, I hope you have learned your lesson. Now to show you my commitment to you downloading legal music, I've setup a $500/month automatic payment into each of your iTunes accounts. You need to learn that illegal actions have consequences. I hope this has taught you a lesson."

Re:All people are equal

[ktappe]

I think the point was that we the common folk get to surrender our life savings, educations, cars homes, etc., while the CEO gets off just giving his kids a stern talkning-to (okay, he's a CEO so it qualifies as worse that the talking-to I got as a kid).

Actually, I expect his kids got a speech something like this:

• Guys, I'm the f---ing CEO of Warner Music. How do you think it looks when my own family pirates music? C'mon, THINK!
• OK, we need to do some damage control: Here's $1000 for each of you from my pocket change. Go erase the downloaded files and buy legal ones. Hurry!

I assure you, the talkings-to I got as a kid did not go like that.

-Kurt

Re:All people are equal

[Atlantis-Rising]

Actually, I was told (don't know how true it is) by a small author that the library did indeed pay him royalties every time someone took his book out.

Re:All people are equal

[MECC]

The point is, that without a license to copy, you cannot copy.

I'm not disagreeing with that. The actual point of the original /. post was that the CEO got of scott-free, whilst the rest of us get in fact different treatment. And no, the mother with 5 kids just barely staying afloat being threatened with a lawsuit is not being 'sued the same' as a multi-millianaire CEO who gets of without so much as a 'pay a fine'. We all get the law we can afford.

If you are completely clueless

Ad homimen is admitting you have no meaningful point to make or things to say, and are just flinging insults in place of substantive discussion.

Re:All people are equal

[PhilipMckrack]

Consider the analogous situation in print media. It is not analogous. My library has DVD's and music cd's available for checkout as well as books. There is no problem taking them and viewing them or listening to them. It is just as morally wrong to copy a book and make it available for download as it is to copy a cd.

Re:All people are equal

[Firehed]

How about we make some sort of citizen's lawsuit on behalf of Warner against this guy and his family? The irony would just fill me with joy.

Re:All people are equal

[paeanblack]

Do you find not compensating artists for their work to be morally neutral as well?

Are copyright extensions morally neutral? That sword cuts both ways.

Re:All people are equal

[r3m0t]

In the UK, a 20% sample of libraries have their borrowings tracked, and authors above a certain popularity get back some payment. However, it's by no means proportional to how many people took your book out. Their is a ceiling (about £6,500), a floor (£1) and a fixed pot (~£6.5mn). The current rate averages at 6 pence per loan. (This is from a book in front of me.)

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

That Sir/Madam, is the problem with US law, not copyright. The entire article is geared towards a response "WTF?? He should get sued!".

The problem is that copyright is criminal law. You do not get sued, you go to jail and/or pay a fine if you are found guilty. The police brings up charges.

The lawsuits are civil law (or whatever it is called). The idea there is to get the perpetrator to pay for the damages done. "the mother with 5 kids just barely staying afloat being threatened with a lawsuit" should just go to court and state the facts. The kids were doing the damages, etc.. Then the judge or the jury will bring damages. I would not be surprised to see virtually ALL of these alleged damages reduced to $1000 and/or thrown out of court.

And no, you do not need to pay a layer to defend yourself. I'm sure the judge will not look very favorably on a plaintiff wanting thousands and thousands of $$$ in damages for something the defendant didn't know was occurring and without prior warning.

A sued CEO, on the other hand, probably should settle.

Re:All people are equal

[PylonHead]

So, you're arguing that because it is easy to do, it should be legal/moral?

Your observation about the porn industry is odd too, since they all *charge* for their content, (the ones that don't are supported by advertising revenue from the ones that do). It's true that they don't waste a lot of time chasing copyright violators, but that's probably because they can produce their content cheaply enough that they don't need to. They can make money on $10 a month subscriptions.

People who want all their content for free ignore the fact that it takes money to create content. How do you get around this basic issue?

Re:All people are equal

[Moofie]

"It is just as morally wrong to copy a book and make it available for download as it is to copy a cd."

Which is to say, "not at all morally wrong".

Re:All people are equal

[StringBlade]

Do you find not compensating artists for their work to be morally neutral as well? Not at all, but I do find compensating record labels (not artists) in perpetuity for work they did not produce morally repugnant.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

An artist should not expect to be able to charge per copy, anymore than they should expect to be able to charge you each time you think the lyrics to yourself in your head.

The technological landscape makes it silly to expect that I can sell the same data over and over. It is just too easy to duplicate.

So instead the artist should expect to charge for concert tickets, t-shirts, etc. Such an artist can also expect to sue anyone who attempts to sell their music (that being the realistic application of copyright in the modern world). The artist can, of course, ALSO sell their own music, but shouldn't get upset at those who download it instead.

Remember, the digital copy is just the commercial. The performance is the product.

Anyway, given that an artist should not expect to be compensated *per copy* then yes, failing to compensate an artist *per copy* IS morally neutral. Sneaking into a concert, stealing a t-shirt, or selling copies of the artist's music without the artist's permission would be morally wrong.

All of this is, of course, my opinion.

Re:All people are equal

[Obyron]

Because it would give their absurd definition of "theft" some amount of credence. If you reject it, reject it wholly, and loudly claim that it is no more "wrong" for the CEO's kids than it is for you. Their hypocrisy shows how hollow and profiteering their motives are. Even though hanging them with their own noose might seem fulfilling, we can't afford to give their crusade even the appearance of legitimacy.

Re:All people are equal

[dougmc]

whilst the rest of us get in fact different treatment

To be fair, over 99% of people who upload/download music illegaly don't get any sort of `treatment' at all -- they don't get sued, they don't get arrested, they probably don't even get lectured by their parents. They just get their music.

Assuming this to be true (and I believe it to be so, but cannot prove it), it seems reasonable to believe that the punishment his children received as a result of their downloading was certainly worse than the median punishment, and probably worse than the average punishment received by all offenders as well.

It's funny that his kids got caught illegally (?) downloading music, in a karmic sort of way, but I'm not going to join the call for his (or their) crucifixion. I'll just let out with a Nelson laugh (`ha ha!') and move on.

The RIAA would probably love to sue everybody, but it would backfire greatly and they know it.

Re:All people are equal

[Em Adespoton]

People who want all their content for free ignore the fact that it takes money to create content. How do you get around this basic issue?

People who want to make a profit off of content they have created ignore the fact that content is never made in a vacuum.

Look at Disney -- a large portion of their content is stolen from works that are now in the public domain. I know, I know, you can't "steal" from the public domain. Or can you? They're applying Microsoft's Embrace-Extend-Extinguish model to stories that were once free for anyone to read/tell.

The trick is that when you're dealing with intellectual property, people get rewarded for providing the information in an easy to consume form. Once the information is available, it becomes a lot harder to make money from providing it yet again. Many "content improvers" attempt to improve content they really can't afford to create by starting from something they got for nothing, thereby keeping costs within the amount they expect to recoup by improving that content. Then, to make a profit for those who lent them the money they're using to do this, they try to artificially limit how people can share their "improved" ideas.

Now for the other side:

American Entertainment is run on the debt-driven economy. This streamlines a lot of the areas required for wide-scale collaberation. Advertising is really a way of loaning money up front and expecting a return on investment down the line. So is producing a movie. If we switched to a profit-driven economy, consumers would have to pay the costs up front, and content creators would have to produce within that budget, leading to smaller budgets and consumers with a vested interest in seing a quality return on investment.

In short, we wouldn't see the kind of entertainment that the current regime is able to produce. We wouldn't see the production of experimental material either -- people would make what the consumer currently wanted, nothing more.

Funny thing is, due to the profit maximization required by investors, that's pretty much how it has turned out with this method too.

--end ramble.

Re:All people are equal

[DaveJay]

Kind of trollish, but this is a legitimate question:

People who want all their content for free ignore the fact that it takes money to create content. How do you get around this basic issue?

I create content every week; I'm a musician, I write music for kids, and I perform it regularly. I record it, too, and I give it to people I know. I'll be recording an album soon, and since I want to go into a studio to have better production value, THAT will cost me money, and so I'll certainly be looking to recoup costs by selling the album. Hopefully I'll make a little extra, too.

But that part, the money part, isn't creating content -- it's creating content as a commodity item for sale, in an attempt to make a (teeny) profit. There's a big difference; I know people who have some of my songs on their iPods, and those recordings didn't cost me a dime, not even in labor, because I recorded them at home for my own personal enjoyment.

If the world is full of people creating music, and some do it for profit and some do it for love, what do you think will be left when the people doing it for profit leave the scene?

I'm not suggesting that would be a utopia, or even in the slightest bit desireable, of course. All I'm saying is this: content creation only costs money if you're trying to sell the content for a profit in today's market. Content creation on its own costs nothing but labor, and if it's a labor of love, you get emotionally paid.

Re:All people are equal

[lymond01]

Sure, it's not "stealing" music. But both stealing and copyright infringement are criminal acts. You argue like you're trying to convince us that because your victim isn't dead, only severely beaten, you're innocent of murder so you should be let go.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what porn sites do you know only charge $10/month? Links please.

Re:All people are equal

[wtansill]

Are copyright extensions morally neutral? That sword cuts both ways.

No, they are not, IMNSHO. It is a theft from the commonweal, and a breaking of the social contract implicit in copyright laws. Very few people understand that copyright (and patent) law was designed to enrich society at large in addition to the artist/inventor.

Re:All people are equal

[hondo77]

Let's say you invent a Star Trek-like transporter. Well, not invent, actually, because your design is much too expensive to implement with what you have in the bank. You go seeking investors to help you out. Let's say you find a really, really rich one who will fully fund you. One catch: he will fully fund your implementation and pay you $100,000,000 on top of that but he owns the patent. Even if it's a flop, you get to keep your $100,000,000. You like the idea of 100,000,000 risk-free dollars so you take the offer.

Turns out it's not a flop because you're really smart. You have your hundred mil and he has his hundred bil. Is that morally repugnant?

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

No, compensating the artist is morally right.

Compensating the RIAA and their henchmen so they can bribe congress and extort money is morally wrong.

Net result == morally neutral

A growing number of people are arranging and composing sheet music and making the downloads available as PDF's for a few dollars. Once you have a publisher in the middle, the cost goes to $40+ and I'd be surprised if more than $5 goes to the composer/arranger. Having the publisher exploit the artist like this I find morally wrong.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

And dig this, if you gave me your music and I liked it (or even liked you as a person and not so much your music) I would go out and BUY your album to support you! You did something for me by giving me something you created from nothing, and I respond by supporting what you created.

If I don't like you or your music then you're on your own. Sorry.

Re:All people are equal

[Crizp]

Your analogy is flawed. To make it correct; the kind rich man gives you $100,000,000 - but you have to pay for the parts and construction out of that. Your benefactor says "oh, but you'll also get $100 for each transporter sold!"

The machine ends up costing $200,000,000 to finish, of course, so you are paying for the rest out of the $100 per transporter petty royalty.

Re:All people are equal

[StringBlade]

I'll go along with this. If I entered into that agreement I may be a fool or I may be desperate but despite that there's nothing morally wrong with it.

I think you're missing the point though. Aside from some very important differences between patents and copyright (patents have a non-renewable short lifetime and are not transferable) my objection isn't so much to the transfer of ownership as it is to the indefinite revenue stream. There are two major reasons for this:

1. a Star Trek-like transporter is not part of our culture in the way music and other creative works are and as such you're not charging a fee to access culture
2. copyright and patents were designed to encourage innovation and creativity by granting a small monopoly to the creator for a very limited amount of time, not to create one thing that you could live off of the rest of your life through royalty payments.

Re:All people are equal

[Monsuco]

Do you find not compensating artists for their work to be morally neutral as well?

And Warner Music and the rest of the cartel does? They absorb almost all of the "compensation". Personally, I find it more ethical to send the artist $5 through the mail after you download all of their songs than to buy it off of iSuck or some other music site.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

What one calls an immoral act of stealing I call a moral act of sharing.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

And from those of us on the other side of the equation, I think I speak for all of us who have ever been screwed unjustly:

Edgar Bronfman, go fuck yourself.

And don't forget to sue yourself for 3 or 4 grand while you're at it!

Re:All people are equal

[crgrace]

side from some very important differences between patents and copyright (patents have a non-renewable short lifetime and are not transferable)
 

Actually, patents are quite transferable. I have two, both transferred to my employer. For $1 each. I get nothing if they are used. It is part of the employment contract. At least the company did pay for the notary to sign my rights away!

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

>
> Do you find not compensating artists for their work to be morally neutral as well?
>

(ZOMG, nobody will gave me money for my message below, though I will spend dozens of minutes, writing it...)

Who talked about not compensating? Why limit yourself to direct money transactions? Shall I teach you that money is simply a tool, to exchange values, of any nature? (whatever most people think of it). Isn't considering money, as The Ultimate End of All Things, morally mediocre, and one major cause of All That is Wrong in Today Society?

- By talking about the artist, if you liked it, you will improve the artist's popularity (and it can go very far, notably with the Internet, when people who you talked to, start talking about the artists to others too -uploading an MP3, or some music video featuring a song/music from the artist, to some server, might lead to hundreds, if not thousands of CD sells (I, for one, brought multiple CDs, after having downloaded some MP3s, or watched some nice music videos, made by fans)).

- By creating derivate works, you will improve the popularity of the original work (well, to some extend, and there might be some confusion, but with more metadata, people would be able to precisely identify who did what).

- By copying, plagiarizing, etc. (yeah, even selling it -though the artists should be able to be the main intermediary for the distribution of his original work, so their work should be officially, very easily available), you will improve the popularity of the original artist.

- If easy and cheap donations systems were created (you should be able to donate like 0.25$ -yeah, when you listen to hundreds of artists, or watch hundred of movies, you just cannot donate 10, 20, or 50$, to everyone-, without it being fully taken, as expenses, by banks, and managers of donation systems), anyone could also donate some money, directly (if you can donate even very small sums, you could donate to every artists you like -or to every artists you downloaded something from, though we don't need such obligations).

- Broad and easy access to culture makes people more happy, makes them think about all kind of things, makes them change their views on all kind of things, teaches them all kind of things, make them more inspired, notably to create derivative or mostly new things (and not just art/culture). It will increase their motivation, and their productivity. It will improve their decisions, their work, and their creations. All this might reflect, very directly, on the original author, even in the short term.

(On the other end, some artists, thanks to the current laws, and general views on these laws, make far, far too much money, and live in luxury, while, most of time, their work is far, far inferior, to a lot of artists, who don't even have enough to eat regularly.)

Please, do not involve morals. You have the wrong idea about it.

Re:All people are equal

[Dun Malg]

Sure, it's not "stealing" music. But both stealing and copyright infringement are criminal acts. You argue like you're trying to convince us that because your victim isn't dead, only severely beaten, you're innocent of murder so you should be let go. Nice loaded analogy, asshat. Copyright infringement is hardly comparable to assault. It's more like parking on a city street and not feeding the parking meter.

Re:All people are equal

[s20451]

a Star Trek-like transporter is not part of our culture in the way music and other creative works are and as such you're not charging a fee to access culture

So what's your policy on charging admission at the museum?

Re:All people are equal

[croddy]

It takes less and less money each year to create content.

Refinement of manufacturing techniques continues to push down the cost of musical instruments, cameras, and so forth. Advances in software, electronics, and computing have made home audio and video studios possible at a fraction of the cost of equipment from the 1960's -- and in many ways, today's home-grade equipment allows artists to be productive on a smaller investment of money and time.

When you have to buy miles of film stock or thousands of dollars in studio time and quarter-inch tape, sure, producing movies and music is exorbitantly expensive. While many artists will still opt for more expensive production (for a variety of reasons), the financial power of the recording industry is no longer a necessary catalyst for the creation of content.

And I don't even think I need to spell out how incredibly cheap the manufacture and distribution of copies of finished content is today.

There was a time when creation and distribution of content was so prohibitively expensive that we needed an industry just to finance and manage these business activities in order for artists to be productive and for others to enjoy their work. Those days are all but over. The MPAA and RIAA are having a difficult time adjusting. The don't seem to be getting the message, so unfortunately, we're just going to have to bleed them until they dry up and go away.

Re:All people are equal

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

The point is, that without a license to copy, you cannot copy. Period.

That's true, but I don't believe that accepting a copy of a work from someone who does not have the right to duplicate it for you is a crime.

And you are stealing. Not butter or bread or houses, but intellectual property.

FWIW, intellectual property is nothing but ideas. You can't steal IP any more than you can steal someone's thoughts.

Anyone that disagrees with basic premise of copyright protection is the reason why companies and individuals waste resources to lock up their property with DRM. Congratulations!!

You seem to be arguing that the public should just shut up and accept bad law rather than fighting to change it and that DRM exists only to ensure that people properly compensate copyright holders. I would argue that both statements are incorrect.

If you are completely clueless, think about intellectual property as a book.

Yes, you would have to be completely clueless to accept that analogy. Intellectual property is nothing more than ideas! It's not somthing tangible, like a book. You are arguing that photocopying a library book is equivalent to taking the book home with you; they're not.

Of course, this will get modded down by some yahoos that do not udnerstand more than l33t and h4x3r.

No, this was modded down by some yahoos with an understanding of copyright law!

They are also one of the major reason for DRM is here.

Sorry, wrong again! DRM is here because the major content producers in the USA want to weasel out of their end of the social contract that is copyright law. They want a way of preventing the public from exercising their rights to the works they've purchased.

Re:All people are equal

[slippyblade]

Um, if the victim is still alive, then it's NOT murder. It's assault or attempted murder. Duh.

Re:All people are equal

[shawngarringer]

Many people don't think that abortion is murder.

A few do.

A very, very vocal, and very, very ignorant few.

Re:All people are equal

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has existed in public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing future existence, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest.
This strange doctrine is in fact supported by common law.
    - Me, 2006

Re:All people are equal

[romland]

God, that must hurt.

One hundred Slashdot-signups too late!

Guess you weren't leet enough :(

Re:All people are equal

[steve_bryan]

...both stealing and copyright infringement are criminal acts

One act is covered by criminal law and the other by civil law. Can you guess which is which? Unless you are a paid shill or too feeble minded to tell the difference it might help in discussions to refrain from parrotting their more flagrantly dishonest claims. Ironically it almost certainly works to their (RIAA) advantage in these lawsuit/extortion actions. If it were a criminal statute they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which is much more stringent than the civil law's requirement of preponderance of evidence.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that if the Chief of Police get's a DUI, he get's fired too.

Re:All people are equal

[E 99]

If the world is full of people creating music, and some do it for profit and some do it for love, what do you think will be left when the people doing it for profit leave the scene?

Um, less talented musicians?

content creation only costs money if you're trying to sell the content for a profit in today's market. Content creation on its own costs nothing but labor, and if it's a labor of love, you get emotionally paid.

Which means so much when it comes to paying a mortgage and educating and feeding your children. What if really talented musicians could actually make a living by creating music, so that they could do it all day long instead of only after they get home from their day job? Wouldn't that be better for everyone? Yes, it would.

Re:All people are equal

[Artifakt]

The RIAA would probably hate to sue everybody. There's that risk of getting people with enough money to fight it out in court and them setting a nasty precedent. Bust a senator's kid, and see if he listens to your lobbyists anymore.

Re:All people are equal

[Tinman_au]

I'm so over hearing about "compensation for poor starving artists". They should go and get a real job if they can't make money "being an artist".

And no, I don't DL music, movies or software unless it's via a legitimate DL service. Hell, I hardly even listen to music, watch movies or TV any more thanks to it being an "industry". As soon as entertainment became an "industry" the _really_ creative folks were marginalised out and most of whats left is just crap formula pulp generated by droids...

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, it's sharing/uploading music that is illegal. You can download it, however.

Re:All people are equal

[shark72]

"Just some people are more equal than other."

Yup. Just compare the Slashdot zeitgeist on whether we should respect the rights of OSS programmers who release stuff under the GPL, vs. whether we should respect the rights of musicians who release music for sale.

If the notion that we should give each equal respect -- by that, I mean honoring the terms under which they offer their work -- is just plain nonsensical to you, then there ya go. Both fluch and Orwell are right.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

That's elitist bullcrap. Most people do know and understand that. Most people also see that it doesn't. you are clearly in the minority there.

Good intentions, and all that, you know.

Re:All people are equal

[shark72]

"I think the point was that we the common folk get to surrender our life savings, educations, cars homes, etc., while the CEO gets off just giving his kids a stern talkning-to (okay, he's a CEO so it qualifies as worse that the talking-to I got as a kid). "

I am not sure I understand. Cases of false identification notwithstanding, I believe it's the record industry's intention to go after the file-sharing "whales," folks who have in excess of 1,000 songs in their share directory. The article doesn't go into specifics, but the impression I got was that his kids just downloaded a few tracks. I don't think the data's there to assume otherwise.

Anyway, I wasn't aware that anybody has lost their house as a result of paying a record industry settlement. Do you have a citation? I thought the settlements were on the order of around $3.5K.

Re:All people are equal

[bky1701]

The GPA and GGPA are stating copyright infringement != theft. This is a fact, even if you dislike that fact. Copyright infringement is just that, copyright infringement. Stealing a car remains theft.

Re:All people are equal

[bky1701]

I don't know really... it could work I guess. A new type of civil disobedience for a new age?

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

That's elitist bullcrap

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Re:All people are equal

[boriquajake]

think the point was that we the common folk get to surrender our life savings, educations, cars homes, etc., while the CEO gets off just giving his kids a stern talkning-to

That might be the single gayest thing I have read all day. I didn't realize that the local soup kitchen was overwhelmed with DRM refugees, freaking douchebag. Look, if you don't want to pay twenty bucks for some shitty CD that only has one good song on it just wait a few more weeks and it will be on clearance or shell out the $.99 for the download or pay the $10/month for the subscription. You are not a heroic soldier in the war against "big business". Whatever, stop bitching and comparing yourself to people with problems. I'm as big a fan of decent "fair use" as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to just take music (or make a digital copy, for all you semantics lovers/lawyer assholes) without paying somebody. Whatever, you all suck.

Re:All people are equal

[Millenniumman]

People openly admit to filesharing all the time, and face no punishment. Should he be targeted because of who he is?

Re:All people are equal

[edbarbar]

Maybe you forgot about the RIAA clean slate program?

http://www.riaa.com/pdf/cleanSlateAffidavit.pdf

Re:All people are equal

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Isn't that from 3 years ago? I didn't think they have that program in effect anymore. Can you tell me where on their web site they have a link to that *pdf?

Re:All people are equal

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The "Clean Slate Program" is no longer in effect.
http://www.riaa.com/issues/cleanSlate.asp

Re:All people are equal

[theLOUDroom]

Do you find not compensating artists for their work to be morally neutral as well?

It is very dishonest to imply that because someone breaks copyright laws, they believe artists should not be compensated for their work.
There are many major flaws in this assumption such as:

• Often the artist isn't the copyright owner.
• Often the artist is dead.
• Perhaps a person believes that this particular method of compensating artists is unjust, but is more than happy to pay an artist in other cases. How many people HAVEN'T paid money to see an artist perform live?

Of course, you would have to be an idiot not to be aware of these issues. You're deliberately ignoring them in an attempt to polarize the discussion and marginalize your opponents.

There is actually a pretty strong argument (both philisophically and economically) against paying someone for work they did once, many times and for the rest of their life. There are many possible alternative means for artists to receive compensation. Unfortunately, they are unpopular with certain artists because they would replace the current "get rich if you're lucky and get screwed otherwise" system with one which compensates honest work with honest pay.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

(This is from a book in front of me.)

Is it out on loan? ;-)

Re:All people are equal

[joeljkp]

Are you sure they weren't talking about "theft"? Theft is a legal term, and does not include copyright infringement. "Stealing" is a colloquial phrase that people use to refer to lots of things, including, in large numbers, copyright infringement.

Re:All people are equal

[Baricom]

One act is covered by criminal law and the other by civil law. Can you guess which is which?

Incorrect. Copyright infringement is covered by criminal law. See 18 USC 2319. (And yes, I know that doesn't cover all acts of copyright infringement. IANAL, but I can read.)

Re:All people are equal

[dthree]

If the world is full of people creating music, and some do it for profit and some do it for love, what do you think will be left when the people doing it for profit leave the scene?

Um, less talented musicians? LOL! How many of the albums with a million+ sales are from really talented musicians?

content creation only costs money if you're trying to sell the content for a profit in today's market. Content creation on its own costs nothing but labor, and if it's a labor of love, you get emotionally paid.

Which means so much when it comes to paying a mortgage and educating and feeding your children. What if really talented musicians could actually make a living by creating music, so that they could do it all day long instead of only after they get home from their day job? Wouldn't that be better for everyone? Yes, it would. It would be cool, but it certainly won't be with the help of the labels. And probably not by selling your songs on the web but perhaps by playing shows, doing session work, or getting creative about incentives for fans to donate (like "Top donor in January gets their name in a song!") Nothing that the RIAA is doing to stem the tide of "stolen music" is going to help anyone but the record execs and their top artists.

Re:All people are equal

[nog_lorp]

However, it would be very interesting to attempt to get them to argue in their defense.

Re:All people are equal

[marevan]

So you're saying that making music in your home doesn't cost you anything? Well, I don't believe you thought of the music equipment, or at least software what you need to produce from the comfort of your own home? Even with a lite-versions of software and good controller keyboard you'd be propably having at least 1000$ worth of equipment/software there. So it DOES cost you to make music there, not as much as the charge-by-the-minute studiotime, but still. .. Or perhaps you have warezed all the software? ;)

Re:All people are equal

[dthree]

So what about the people who spend $1000+ on equipment but don't sell any music because it isn't very good. Should I have to pay for their equipment too? Nobody buys equipment as an "investment" on their future sales. Thats just foolish. Most musicians I know view income from sales or gigs as a way to purchase new or upgraded equipment.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Working in the Music bus., artists see a [very] small cut for production albums.

Re:All people are equal

[steve_bryan]

OK, smart ass. Name one case brought by the RIAA which has been a criminal prosecution. ALL of these cases are civil cases. Trying to weasel around doesn't change that salient fact. They have managed to get their sock puppets in Congress to pass all sorts of laws over the years and the day may come when it is a criminal violation to hum a tune without paying royalties but we aren't there yet (but try singing "Happy Birthday" in some public fashion and see what happens next). There is a criminal statute having to do with infringement which is on a commercial scale (from what I've read, I have not bothered to look up the statute). This would be in the case of one company against another where large sums of money changes hands. The fact remains that stealing is a crime and copyright infringement is a civil matter. Pretending otherwise is either dishonest or stupid. Your choice.

If you read 18 USC 2319 it refers to physical goods that have a counterfeit seal:

(a) Whoever--
(1) falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, mutilates, or alters the seal of any department or agency of the United States, or any facsimile thereof;

Which has absolutely zero relevance in every case under discussion (i.e. downloading where there is no seal involved). You're firing blanks.

Re:All people are equal

[hondo77]

Your analogy is flawed.

It is not an analogy, it is a hypothetical. You do all the work, the investor "just" supplies money. You are well-compensated though the investor makes a lot more money for not doing much more than signing a check (yes, it's a far-out hypothetical--work with me here). Is that "morally repugnant", as the ggp says?

Re:All people are equal

[X-treme-LLama]

Umm, I don't know how you live, but for many people, $3.5k can be two months salary. Hell $6 x 40 = $240. $240 x 4 = $960. So if you make $6 an hour, that's nearly 4 months pay. That would put most people I know out of their homes/apartments.

If you can stand to lose $3.5k, I could sure use it. I'm a month behind on my rent.

Re:All people are equal

[X-treme-LLama]

But the problem is, he very rarely GETS the DUI. Usually he just gets a pat on the back and an escort home.

Re:All people are equal

[Eivind]

Certainly.

Today, on my way to work, I walked by a musician playing a rather excellent interpretation of an old Dire Straits song. I didn't compensate him for providing this art in any way, unless you count a smile as compensation. I don't have a bad conscience either.

I also stopped for a moment to enjoy the "meteor" a large copper-coloured artificial meteor that a lokal artist made, and that's been all over the local press lately because of controversies relating to where to put the damn thing. I didn't compensate the creator for my enjoyment of his art.

I also read a newspaper-article online. With Adblocker on. Without feeling in the *least* guilty about it.

Are you suggesting these actions are somehow morally wrong ? Which ethical rule did I break ?

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Very few people understand that copyright (and patent) law was designed to enrich society at large in addition to the artist/inventor.

And I think more than a few Americans at the Founding of the nation would would have said the opposite. (Jefferson, for one.)

"Copyright and Patent law was designed to benefit society at large, and incidentally do so by enriching the artist/inventor."

Re:All people are equal

[Baricom]

OK, smart ass.
I didn't call you names. I'd appreciate if you'd extend me the same courtesy.

Name one case brought by the RIAA which has been a criminal prosecution. ALL of these cases are civil cases.
Yes, all the cases brought so far have been civil cases, but that wasn't what was implied. The parent was arguing that stealing is criminal, while copyright infringement is not. That's not accurate. You can be tried both ways under the law. Besides, doesn't the government have to prosecute criminal complaints?

Trying to weasel around doesn't change that salient fact.
The only weasels here are the MAFIAA. I'm merely stating facts, and just because a law makes something a crime doesn't mean I think it should be.

They have managed to get their sock puppets in Congress to pass all sorts of laws over the years and the day may come when it is a criminal violation to hum a tune without paying royalties but we aren't there yet
Agreed.

There is a criminal statute having to do with infringement which is on a commercial scale (from what I've read, I have not bothered to look up the statute).
How convenient for you! If you'll click the link in the post above yours, you'll find that I pointed you to the relevant statute.

This would be in the case of one company against another where large sums of money changes hands.
I suppose that's true, if you consider $1,000 a "large sum of money." (Relatively speaking, it's not.) However, the law applies to people and not "companies," so individuals are just as vulnerable to prosecution.

The fact remains that stealing is a crime and copyright infringement is a civil matter. Pretending otherwise is either dishonest or stupid.
Neither choice applies.

If you read 18 USC 2319 it refers to physical goods that have a counterfeit seal:
That seems to be a bad link. The text says "506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17" but the link goes to title 18. The second link (which reads "section 506 (a)(1) of title 17") goes to title 17, as expected. I took the liberty of reporting the problem to the webmaster.

You're firing blanks.
If you say so.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are completely clueless

Ad homimen is admitting you have no meaningful point to make or things to say, and are just flinging insults in place of substantive discussion.

Motherfucking moron -- read and understand the words. Are you really such a dumb shit that you think wrapping an argument in offensive language is sufficient to deny the truth also included? Do you think there's really a difference between "The sun rose this morning" and "The sun rose this morning, you suppurating bastard"?

Including offensive language in no way detracts from the truth value of the other words. It admits nothing beyond holding the other party in minimum high regard.

Re:All people are equal

[packeteer]

It doesn't take all day every day to write good music. Most of the best music written is done isn spare time by normal people who later "make it big". This is not the majority of music but it is the best music.

Re:All people are equal

[pipatron]

Actually, their intention so far has been to spread out a "carpet of fear" amongst the average citizens. They don't lose any potential income on the big FTP sites or DC-hubs, since average Joe don't know how to find them, and even in their wildest trip could they ever think that the FTP owner would actually have bought those 400.000 albums. They are more scared about this aforementioned Joe actually downloading the song he wants from [insert pop idol of the month] instead of buying the whole album. This is why they target the "little guy", to show people that it's not only the big downloaders that are getting caught.

Re:All people are equal

[professionalfurryele]

On the off chance this isn't an excelent troll, I'm going to try to explain to you why it is you are wrong.

If you owned a car, and I had the means to make a precise duplicate of your car and did so, would I be stealing?

Stealing deprives you of property.

Next we come to some special cases. The GPL exists because the application of copyright law to software is fundamentally broken. In order to protect basic rights that should be present anyway, the GPL was created. You actually lose freedom when a GPLed piece of software enters the public domain. When you violate the GPL you commit copyright infringement (by and large). You are not stealing. No one is deprived of property.

Now as for DRM, DRM is effectively a breach of contract between citizens and content producers. The agreement was very simple. We will give content producers a limited collection of monopolies, and in return, they enrich the public domain. If their work is protected by DRM or has perpetual copyrigt, then it never enters the public domain, and hence they have broken their end of the bargain. I would like to see a blanket ban on DRM and punitive measures taken against those who violated this agreement to ensure this kind of crap is not pulled again. Content producers should play by the rules.

Your book analogy is flawed because I cannot make an essentially free copy of the book. And this is nothing like what government mandated monopolies are. I believe in the free market. Copyright is essentially government interference in the free market. Now I accept some interference may be useful, but don't go deluding yourself that copyright is in any way a protection of some property you own.

Re:All people are equal

[Znork]

Personally, I'm very interested in seeing artists and composers compensated, so when will we see the Warner CEO admit that he's been stealing the artists money?

Re:All people are equal

[Znork]

"Well, not invent, actually, because your design is much too expensive to implement with what you have in the bank."

See, here's where that argument looses contact with reality. Innovation in a communicative world isnt done in hundred-mil multi-decade steps, it's done in small increments on a vast pool of a hundred million other small $1 increments.

"Is that morally repugnant?"

Reality is that everyone else does the 99,999,999 steps, your business man finances one $1 step, gets the patent, and can prevent anyone else doing the other steps from implementing or reaping any benefit from their part.

And that is morally repugnant.

Re:All people are equal

[James McGuigan]

In order to launch a civil lawsuit you need to show that you have been personally harmed by their actions (I forget the legal term for this), but in short you cannot sue on behalf of someone else, even in a class action suit, you need to find the individuals directly harmed.

If you where one of the copyright holders yourself, then you could sue on that basis.

The other complaint you make is that you (as part of a group of filesharers) are being harmed due to selective enforcement of copyright holders rights (ie they are suing some people but not others) - this might work for trademark law (where failure to defend the mark means you lose your rights), but not copyright law. You cannot sue for negitive-damages (ie TimeWarner not inflicting a lawsuit on someone).

The only possible way you could make that argument fly would be to put it in terms of an anti-trust suit, claiming that selective enforcement of rights is being used to artifically inhibit compitition and keep prices artifically high (again you would need to be both a defendant in a lawsuit and a competitior to TimeWarner to make such a claim). However such a claim would likely fail on the basis that the ability to initiate a lawsuit is considered a fundamental right of both a citizen and a company.

Re:All people are equal

[aadvancedGIR]

To be exact, your analogy also need to say that there are still lots of free parking places in that street, since copying neither deprive any legitimate consumer from its right to buy any goods nor increases their price.

Re:All people are equal

[somersault]

I take it you haven't heard any non-talented musicians recently then. Even some really cheesy crap pop is probably better for your ears than someone who can't sing (whether they wrote the song or not, and even, or *especially* if they're singing a cover of a song you actually like). In cheesy pop songs the instruments usually *are* played by 'talented' musicians, then maybe sung by someone with an average (as far as professional singing goes) voice, and good looks (or occasionally a good voice and good looks, as in the case of Christina Aguilera and Shakira, IMO ;) ).

As a drummer in a band I can respect the precision with which some punk rock bands play. You may think it's easy to do well, but it actually takes dedication and effort to play a decently fast punk song without it turning into a slightly out of phase mess.

Re:All people are equal

[somersault]

Or you could simply get a free wave editor and record over a microphone - or directly plugged into the mic socket with a 5mm to 3.5mm adapter - using the instrument that you already own for your own enjoyment, being a musician and all. I could record songs onto my computer for free if I wanted (I did a small amount a few years ago). I could borrow my friends drums if I wanted too. It's better just going to a cheap recording studio though, that's about £30 an hour here, and the quality is okay. It's more the actual bands performance that's important. If you can play the songs well then you'll be able to get them recorded quickly - if you have to do 10 takes to get it right, then you'll pay more.

Re:All people are equal

[Ginger Unicorn]

Personally, I think that assuming control of other people's hardware so that you can force them to "play along" with your technologically absurd business model is morally wrong.

Thats not how it works. They can't hack into your computer and install DRM. You get to choose if you install Vista or iTunes or whatever. You are volunteering to give them control of your computer.

Re:All people are equal

[Ginger Unicorn]

Perhaps the market could adapt to being able to recoup investment and profit purely from box office takings and/or merchandising. I bet if push came to shove and DVD revenues completely dried up, they'd just stop paying actors millions of dollars, develop cheaper and more efficient methods of production, and carry on making movies. You dont have to spend $80,000,000 to make a good movie.

Just because their "lumbering giant" business model is going to collapse doesn't mean it's impossible to monetize the market under those conditions.

Re:All people are equal

[unapersson]

"Yup. Just compare the Slashdot zeitgeist on whether we should respect the rights of OSS programmers who release stuff under the GPL, vs. whether we should respect the rights of musicians who release music for sale."

Those are two completely different things.

A = X downloaded for free, used freely, shared freely.

B = Y downloaded for free, modifed, distributed as original work.

Now X and Y can be replaced with "GPL software" and "Music". You're saying A=B. Whereas you could have a group of people that find A acceptable in all cases and B unacceptable in all cases. So they're being entirely consistant and not at all hypocritical.

Re:All people are equal

[mrchaotica]

What if really talented musicians could actually make a living by creating music, so that they could do it all day long instead of only after they get home from their day job? Wouldn't that be better for everyone? Yes, it would.

You say that as if it's some kind of universal truth, but it's not. In fact, it's very much up for debate!

I assert that it would not be better, by the simple fact that music is virtual. Just like lawyers or the banking industry (which really does nothing more than shuffle paper around), musicians don't actually add tangible wealth to the economy. If all the musicians had day jobs gathering resources, or manufacturing products, or even designing new ways to do either of those things more efficiently, humanity as a whole would be better off (note: this does not mean there would be no music -- it would just all be folk music [by definition, not by genre]).

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

>
> I'm so over hearing about "compensation for poor starving artists".
> They should go and get a real job if they can't make money "being an artist".
>

Sure, this is perfectly valid: at the global scale, we must first think about more basic needs. The problem is that there is so, so, *so* many people, doing jobs nobody want to do, doing some jobs only because they need money, doing jobs badly (knowingly, or not), doing unneeded jobs, etc., that people who seriously want to do what they want to do, and who will most certainly do it wonderfully, and improve society, cannot, because of multiple and numerous stupid problems.

This is why you cannot just say they should be doing something else, because the only foundation of what you say, is the global problems of today society, and not a real need for doing something more important (though the most important things, for all, today, should be, first and foremost, to create a new society -and I say *new*, because building atop rotten foundations, as some people try to do -badly, moreover-, will just lead to more and more problems, until everything just collapse, one way or another).

Re:All people are equal

[gfreeman]

Um, less talented musicians?

And using this model, what if really talentless "artists" were given a lifestyle way beyond 99% of talented artists? Look at the top 40 today and tell me that they're all talented artists deserving of fame and fortune.

Nothing really to do with your comment, but it's a misconception that due to "illegal downloading" there are artists losing enough cash to notice a change in their lifestyle. Get big enough to worry about "illegal downloading" becoming a threat to your livelihood, and your main source of income is going to be marketing goods and tours (you know, when you have to continue to WORK for a living?)

Re:All people are equal

[steve_bryan]

I apologize for being so snarky in my reply but I thought you were the same person who made the ridiculously inaccurate initial statement. But did you follow your own link? There are no criminal penalties stated for copyright infringement in that statute. None of that would EVER apply to a P2P case. The criminal penalties only pertain to the use of counterfeit government seals applied to some physical medium. The criminal statute which you cited only applies to counterfeiting (title 17 refers to title 18 for its definition). So if read at all carefully (unless you have a correction to supply) your reference makes the case that copyright infringement (specifically downloading) is not subject to any criminal statute. I stand by the content, though not the attitude of my reply. (It does get awfully annoying, though that people continue to claim downloading is the "same" as stealing and a criminal violation and then have no valid evidence even from the RIAA's own lapdog Congress).

Re:All people are equal

[Khaotix]

"All Orks is equal, but some Orks are more equal dan others."

~Goff Warboss Bugrat Skumdreg

(read a page of 40k quotes the other day ...)

Re:All people are equal

[jagdish]

Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are.

Re:All people are equal

[DavidChristopher]

I create content every week; I'm a musician, I write music for kids, and I perform it regularly. I record it, too, and I give it to people I know. I'll be recording an album soon, and since I want to go into a studio to have better production value, THAT will cost me money, and so I'll certainly be looking to recoup costs by selling the album. Hopefully I'll make a little extra, too.

That's a load of crap. Idealistic hippie commune crap, and you know it. Your recordings now serve as a marketing tool to promote your live work, which I assume you get paid for. (If not, then you're too rich to be commenting on this issue. Some of us musicians are starving).

Music is a business. You do it to make money. I've spoken to many A&R reps, Radio Station Program Directors and so on who indicate the bands that get signed, and the signed bands that succeed, are the ones who treat themselves like a business. Live music markets the recorded material. Recorded material markets the live shows.

I love the song writing- THAT comes at no cost to me. Recording, Producing, Distributing... even playing live... all costs money. There's no way in hell you can do it for free. Nor should people download it for free.

Re:All people are equal

[MECC]

Motherfucking moron -- read and understand the words. Are you really such a dumb shit that you think wrapping an argument in offensive language is sufficient to deny the truth also included? Do you think there's really a difference between "The sun rose this morning" and "The sun rose this morning, you suppurating bastard"?

Personal attacks indicate that you have so little confidence in what you say that you feel the need to boost your credibility by somehow trying to discredit what someone says by portraying them as motherfucking morons or pus-discharging bastardized dumbshits that nobody should pay attention to. That's why personal attacks do more to discredit the attacker than the attacked.

Besides, if you had bothered to read the original post (assuming you're the A/C to whom I responded in the parent), you'd have realized that your comments, which made an assertion about the illegality of copying and redistributing copyrighted material (to which I actually didn't disagree with in the first place) didn't seem to respond to the subject of the original /. post. Since I didn't really disagree with you in the first place, which words did I not read? Your personal attacks also indicate that your responses are more about a little hurt pride than an actually logical or rational point of some kind. After all, I didn't really disagree with you.

I just pointed out that the actual /. post was about how the CEO got off with nothing, while your comment prattled on about how illegal copying copyrighted material was. If you really believed that, I'd think you'd be upset that the CEO's kids basically got away with it publicly, not that somebody pointed out how your post didn't address the subject of the original /. story.

Re:All people are equal

[edbarbar]

Whether the program is in effect anymore is irrelevent. The fact is the music industry offered wide spread amnesty for the illegal actions.

Re:All people are equal

[mdwh2]

If the kids had stolen - by that I mean stolen, not committed copyright infringement - say CDs from a shop, what they also have only got a "talking to"?

Of course not. The police would be involved, and the decision is nothing to do with the CEO.

Re:All people are equal

[ddddan]

If the world is full of people creating music, and some do it for profit and some do it for love, what do you think will be left when the people doing it for profit leave the scene?

Um, less talented musicians?

LOL! How many of the albums with a million+ sales are from really talented musicians?

While the talent of many of the pop musicians is questionable, the production value does make a big difference (especially in pop music). If artists can't afford quality producers or studio time, the overall recording quality and indirectly the musical quality will suffer. (Spoken as an independent artist)

Re:All people are equal

[RoloDMonkey]

I don't disagree with all of your points. However, there is a "profit-driven" model for entertainment, and it does produce quite a bit of experimental material. It's called Public Broadcasting. People pay up-front how much they think next year's content will be worth, and then the producer's create that content. Not every donor likes every show, but they like some enough to support the other "experiments".

Re:All people are equal

[Fafnir43]

Correction - they can't legally install DRM without your permission. Unfortunately, this is irrelevant, because they do it anyway. IIRC, Sony's MediaMax DRM installed regardless of whether the user accepted or declined the EULA, and there was some other piece of DRM whose name I can't recall that got installed on autorun without the user's consent. And they only need implicit consent. Very implicit. That's why the Sony rootkit was (arguably) technically legal - there was a clause in the EULA saying "We may install other software on your PC" or some such.

Re:All people are equal

[Colonel Angus]

But the corrections made to you hypothetical are much more representative of the way the music industry works. Artists are not given $X no matter what. They're given a loan. With that loan they create their work and all that it entails and then some. They split what is left over, if any, and are in debt to the label if they run a deficit.

I know she can be a bit bat-shit crazy, but here's a great transcript of a speech that Courtney Love gave to the Digital Holywood online entertainment conference outlining the abuse that artists are on the receiving end of from their record labels.

Re:All people are equal

[Panaflex]

Alright Llama boy - post your paypal and we'll merry-christmas you.

Re:All people are equal

[Baricom]

I think you need to start reading from 18 USC 2319. When you do, ignore the first pair of links which read "506 (a)" because they go back to title 18, while the text seems to state that they should go to title 17.

Next, ignore 18 USC 2319 (b), because 17 USC 506 (a)(1) is talking about willful infringement "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain," which I think we can agree doesn't apply to P2P.

18 USC 2319 (c) is where things start to get tricky. That portion is stated out of order, but it seems to me that it says that if you copy or distribute over $1,000 worth of copies, you can go to jail for a year or more, depending on whether you reach a second $2,500 threshold and whether this is a repeat offense.

Here's what 17 USC 506 (a)(2) reads:

(a) Criminal Infringement.-- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully...(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000

P2P is clearly electronic distribution, and the recording industry could make the case that the "superservers" they're going after are distributing more than $1,000 worth of music. (That's roughly 67 CDs at $15 each. 14 tracks times 67 CDs is 938 total tracks. Notice also that it's "copies or phonorecords" - multiple copies of the same track count toward the $1,000.) I think one could make the argument that it's fairly easy for a P2P uploader to hit the criminal threshold.

I think the argument about seals is completely irrelevant, because that's the link I'm arguing is going to the wrong place and should be ignored. The text says it should go to title 17, but instead it goes to title 18.

I can also agree that none of this probably covers downloading, but that's not who the recording industry is going after. Their modus operandi is to connect to servers and sue people with tracks to download. I think the only reason we haven't seen criminal charges yet is that the evidence the RIAA has (going after the person paying the ISP bill instead of figuring out who the actual infringer is) wouldn't stand up to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement in a criminal trial.

In conclusion, I may have been a little sharp too, and I apologize. I think we both dislike the way the laws are taking us, even if we disagree on their exact meaning.

Re:All people are equal

[Prophet of Nixon]

Personally, I would have tipped the guy playing Dire Straits as they are/were my favorite band and they are sorely missed, but that's by no means a question of ethics. What was he playing, something from their earlier western-influenced days or the later jazz-rock?

Re:All people are equal

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

1. I think it's quite relevant that they have not offered any amnesty for 3 years, and have instead embarked on a "sue-em-all" campaign calculated to strike fear into people's hearts. Why is it not relevant that something which you mentioned as though it were in existence was in fact abandoned 3 years ago? And relevant to whom? I'm sure it would be relevant to anyone who read your post and was wondering how to sign up for this long ago abandoned program. Let others be the judge of the relevance of your post, which was not presented as evidence that the RIAA long ago had, and then promptly abandoned, an "amnesty" program.

2. Can you offer any evidence that this program was in fact "wide spread" or is that surmise on your part?

3. It's not at all clear that the "actions" to be prevented are "illegal". For example, do you have any legal authority for the proposition that having a shared files folder with copyrighted song files in it is "illegal"?

Re:All people are equal

[lymond01]

Friendly. The analogy was trying to make it clear the difference the original poster was making. Whether you're stealing or infringing copyright, it's illegal either way. Copyright laws have their uses, and so does the RIAA, but I don't agree with the huge deal the RIAA is making out of sharing music for free. But it doesn't mean that, as it's written in law, that it's not illegal, and you can't tell people that it isn't and expect to further your argument.

If I'm wrong here, please tell me, but don't call me an asshat.

Re:All people are equal

[quixote9]

That sounds like a good system. For what it's worth, my take on the whole issue of payment to artists for their work is that there's not enough of it. In my ideal world, downloads--or for that matter, via OCR, photocopies--would be tracked in some highly intelligent, incorruptible fashion, and then artists would be paid royalties based on that census. Like any census, it wouldn't track every single instance, but it would be a much better approximation than the nonsense we have now.

The money for distribution to artists would come from a fee attached to the sale of any hardware that makes it possible to download and store other people's work, including paper, I guess. The idea is that the payment would be so widely distributed, we'd hardly notice it. I'm not suggesting an extra dollar be tacked on to the price of every ream, which is probably what paper manufacturers would try to make out of it.

(I gather something like this is already being implemented in parts of Europe, except artists have to sign up and pay for it, which means the ones who need it most miss out.)

The neat thing about the system is that then, when people like somebody's work, everybody benefits. People can download freely and the artists gets all the royalties coming to him/her. Oh, wait, the publishers and RIAA and MPAA would be kind of left out in the cold. They'd have to actually earn their money by their skill at packaging the product. I wonder if that's why they haven't been calling me about what a brilliant idea this is?

Re:All people are equal

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There are many different types of file sharing behaviors, some of which may no doubt are copyright infringements, some of which clearly are not copyright infringements, and some of which might go either way when the Courts get around to processing this overload of new information. So as to knowing what is "illegal", only time will tell.

Re:All people are equal

[dthree]

I'm a musician, so I get your point and I don't think its always easy do play simple punk or rock, but that is besides the point. The poster suggested that if the pro's leave the scene, all we will be left with is bad musicians so maybe I didn't make myself clear. The pro scene has it's share of good and bad musicians as does the amature scene.

Oh, and I used to think that both singers you mentioned were good until I started hearing more autotune on their recordings. I'm not saying they can't sing well but gratuitous use of autotune makes me think that they can't keep in tune.

Re:All people are equal

[Baki]

I do. I think artists should not be compensated for their work with state protection. If they find some model to make money, fine for them. If not, bad luck. Fact is that copying bits is just that, and if that makes the "business model" of many artists obsolete, so be it.

Re:All people are equal

[somersault]

How can you tell if they're using autotune? Interesting.. I really thought it would just be possible for them to be good singers.. guess you can't have looks and ability after all ;)

Re:All people are equal

[edbarbar]

> Why is it not relevant that something which you mentioned as though it were in existence was in fact abandoned 3 years ago?

The RIAA went down the path of forgive, but a bunch of brats thumbed their nose at them, and the RIAA found it necessary to pursue other means to protect their property. Kind of like what the Warner bros CEO did.

> 2. Can you offer any evidence that this program was in fact "wide spread" or is that surmise on your part?

Anyone could sign up for it. Isn't that widespread? Oh, I see, you think I meant the people who signed up for it. No, people just want to get their music for free and not pay for it.

> 3. It's not at all clear that the "actions" to be prevented are "illegal". For example, do you have any legal authority for the proposition that having a shared files folder with copyrighted song files in it is "illegal"?

Please. No one is copying around random bits across filestores for a reason. They aren't worth anything. At the end of it, the most main reason by several orders of magnitude for carrying around copyrighted music bits is so someone can listen to it without a license.

Re:All people are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

And what message is he sending by saying this? It's ok for my (Bronfman's) kids to download music and get away with it but everyone else we'll sue? Nice Huh?

Edgar Bronfman has to be the worst executives even worse than Fiorina or Chainsaw Al if that's possible. Bronfman took down a Canadian corporate icon. His business acumen includes destroying Seagram, ruining the family name, destroying a corporate icon, selling Seagram to Vivendi and watching it get dismembered and sold for scraps, thinking wine and spirits were passee (when they've been around since the stone age), letting the French determine his companies fate, and spuring MPAA lawsuits. He negotiated a deal to sell a 25% stake in Dupont which represented 70% of Seagrams profits. Bronfman rates as a case study on how not to run a business and a prime study of a bad executive and bad business decisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagram

Bronfman became star struck by Hollywood. Rather than focusing on making money and selling licquor he decided to buy Hollywood courtesy of MCA and Pollygram. Movies and music may be glamorous Bronfy but they are anything but profitable. A movie studio has cyclical profits that go up or down each year based on TV revenue and ratings as well as box office receipts. This guy (Bronfman) rejected value investing and went with glamour investing. Secretly each Seagram heir is muttering "Bronfman Sucks." "Why did we choose this looser to manage the family business."

A value investor like Warren Buffet wouldn't overpay Philips for Polygram to the tune of $10.4 billion. Bronfman is a business joke. He exchanged and bought high P/E shares (music and movies) businesses in place of low P/E profitable value stocks such as wine and spirits and chemicals and oil. Beer and wine and spirits may not be glamourous but it is probably much less cyclical than movies and music. Music is going through a business transformation. Oil is way more profitable now than music or movies. Exxon Mobil made 25+ billion one year and 9 billion in one quarter.

In another turn of genius (or stupidity) Bronfman decided to sell Seagrams to Vivendi a French company. The French are famous for social capitalism and the government is involved in dictating foreign capital investment and ownership and has their paws over everything. The French government has pro French business practices. The brilliance of this move is that Bronfman became number 2 instead of Number 1 and a foreign investor in French owned Vivendi. Bronfman traded power for powerlessness. "Brilliant," According to the Guiness guys. The other positive thing is that the wine and spirits got sold and disposed of destroying much of the Seagram name and divied up between two or three companies. Bronfman has the ethics of an Emu if he could stand for the family business getting hacked up and dismembered. Way to go Bronfman not only destroy Seagram's name but ruin the legacy as well.

Vivendi also had to sell assets and sell Universal and had a big capital crunch after the Seagram buyout and all the other purchases. Shortly after Vivendi tanked which cost Bronfy et al billions.

Re:All people are equal

[dthree]

It adds a certain timbre to the vocal. I first noticed it when it was intentionally overused for effect, which sounds like Cher's "Believe", but then I started noticing that same type of vocal sound in places where it was not so obvious. Now when I point it out to my wife, she can hear it and asks me to stop telling her so she can just enjoy the song. My point was that I think the girls you mentioned ARE good singers, but when producers use these tools, I think it lowers the credibility of the singer.

Re:All people are equal

[rojer_31]

I assure you, the talkings-to I got as a kid did not go like that. That's because your parent is not the CEO of Warner Music

Re:All people are equal

[somersault]

I do remember Cher's Believe.. was thinking about this a little last night, wondering how it would manifest itself, thinking it would just move their voice to the closest note, and that's how they manage to do such impressive movement between discrete notes really quickly, like walking up/down steps rather than taking an escalator (though presumably some people actually do that). I'll probably start noticing it too now :p

Re:All people are equal

[fbjon]

That's absolutely true. It's kind of like compression artefacts: when you know what to listen for, you hear it every time.

Though of course, there's probably a lot who use it so slightly I don't notice it.. which is OK by me. I was wondering though, does Autotune use simple pitch/time shifting, or does it shift formants too? Might be easier to avoid the strangeness of autotuning that way.

Re:All people are equal

[1110110001]

For every musician, who sells records, there are five who just play and compose as a hobby. They don't want to get in the music business, because it wouldn't be about the fun anymore. And if only some of them release their stuff on the internet with a creative common license you'll get tons of free content.

They have fun, you get stuff you might like. Who is losing? The industry, who wants us to listen to some crap and sue us? I couldn't care less.

Re:All people are equal

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Sounds like you have a bit of a bias there, Ed.

Re:All people are equal

[PylonHead]

What's stopping you from doing this right now?
If you don't like the music industry, ignore them.

You don't need to violate copyright to put your plan in action.

Re:All people are equal

[PylonHead]

It's true that amateur projects are more affordable today than they used to be. But content creation at the professional level keeps getting more expensive...

A high end video game now costs $10 million dollars to produce. Why? Because the exceptions for graphics, AI, physics, etc, just keep getting higher.

HD TV shows are expected to cost more money to produce than regular TV shows because the extra definition will require better sets, costumes, more expensive equipment.

A big special effects movie can cost hundreds of million dollars to make. Special effects teams work for weeks on a single "shot" of a film that might last for 5 seconds.

In short, as the technology gets better, our expectations for the content becomes greater, but the prices don't go down.

Re:All people are equal

[1110110001]

Your question was "...ignore the fact that it takes money to create content. How do you get around this basic issue?". I showed you an easy way. So what has that to do with violating copyright? Your fact just isn't a fact.

Re:All people are equal

[Eivind]

Telegraph road -- which I thougth was an unlikely candidate for a sax-interpretation, but there you go.

Re:All people are equal

[PylonHead]

Well, if these people simply wanted to ignore the music industry, then there wouldn't be an issue, would there.

But they want to take what the music industry creates, and not pay for it.

"Your fact just isn't a fact." Well, if you want to chip off the smallest slice of content you can possibly think of, and then pretend that (a) these people's time isn't worth money, (b) the equipment they use to produce, record, edit and distribute their music doesn't cost money, then you might get away with that statement.

But music is just one type of content. Are you prepared to get all your video content from You Tube? No more full length movies, just America's funniest home videos? Do you want computer games to drop in sophistication to what we had back in the 1980s? Most of today's content can't be produced by one guy in his garage in his spare time.

Re:All people are equal

[1110110001]

You always argue with all or nothing. If some content is free it can be copied free of charge and the author doesn't have a problem, no he wants you to do that. That doesn't mean everybody has to do it and also not everything has to be free.

Know to the "everything costs money issue". Let's say I play golf and you watch me. The equipment costs money and I'd also pay a green fee. Now would you pay me just for seeing me doing my hobby? I guess not. Would I stop just because nobody pays me doing my hobby? Of course not. I'm not doing it for the others in the first place, I'm doing it for me.

But still if you watch me and think I'm good it make me proud of my skills. The same thing happens, when I give away my music for free, or my software, or my photos. I've already done that stuff just for fun, not caring about money.

There's only one exception. If you want to make money with my stuff I want a slice of that cake.

And if you don't mind I'll use free software and get free content without paying, ignoring the fact, that it does cost money to create. If the author thinks he can afford it I think he'll be ok.

Re:All people are equal

[PylonHead]

I use and contribute to free software, download free music, and watch free videos on YouTube. It's all groovy.

My stated point: Content costs money to create. Hard to argue with that one.

Some people can afford to swallow that cost and give their creation to the world. Say an amateur singer songwriter. Again, groovy.

There are many types of content that won't ever fit that model. A Pixar animated movie for example. Too many people working full time for too long.

There are people on slashdot, (perhaps you're not one of them) that thinks that a Pixar movie should be freely distributable. Why? Because they can and because the want to. I've just never been able to understand how they can justify this to the people that actually do the work to make the movie. I've seen how hard the average animator works... 60-80 hour weeks for months on end.

Re:All people are equal

[1110110001]

I do understand your point but it seems to me my point isn't clear to you.

Of course producing content does cost money. If someone demands money for it it's not ok to just download it.

But my problem is, that content can be free and gratis. If you tell everyone there is no such think as content free as in beer, like IFPI et al. does, people will think stuff under a creative common license can't be legal. IFPI has many websites and other stuff that educates people how you always have to pay for content, because producing it can never be gratis. And they don't want to mention free content or creative commons. Now people are afraid to copy my free content, because after all the newspapers can't be wrong, even if the articles are nothing more than a 1:1 copy of some IFPI papers.

If you want to tell people producing content can't be free for the producers or artists, also alway tell them some of them are nice people and don't care about getting any money - maybe just a bit famous. It works for open source software and many people got jobs through OSS.

I hope you now understand my view. People should enjoy content and not be afraid it could be illegal.

PS: I guess you could replace IFPI with RIAA. In Europe IFPI is just as bad and stupid.

Re:All people are equal

[PylonHead]

We're in complete agreement about that stuff.

I never said "there is no such think as content free as in beer".

Meh...welcome to Real Life

[StringBlade]

Life's not fair. People with power use it to their advantage. How is this news?

Next you'll be telling me that the President's daughters got drunk underage but nothing came of it.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[LordSnooty]

Still a bit stomach-churning though. Why can't single mums etc. currently being sued for supposed infringement be given instead the option of issuing the kids with a stern bollocking?

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[CitznFish]

I got drunk underaqged and nothing came of it. As do millions of other youths.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, thanks for sharing. you are a fountain of insight.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[A beautiful mind]

Because that's stupid. The kids don't need talking to, the silly laws need to get changed.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[bill_kress]

So because life's not fair we shouldn't care?

I suppose you'd have fit right in in Germany circa WWII.

No wonder our country is being dismantled, destroyed and fed to corporations. Because "life's not fair" and voting and taxes are our only responsibilities to it. Fixing it when it's broken and causing additional, unnecessary unfairness, well that's somebody else's problem.

Oh, and no, I don't know what to do about it either--but dismissing evil behavior offhand is not even a possibility.

I probably wouldn't have ranted if your post had been modded funny (as you probably intended) rather than insightful.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[tomstdenis]

afaik it's only illegal to SERVE alcohol to minors (with few exceptions). I'm sure it's totally illegal to become drunk as a minor. Just how you accomplish that is a mystery...

Tom

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Damastus the WizLiz]

Wasnt there a little girl who got sued over dowloading music? Didnt her parents have to pay some rediculous settlement?

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[JorDan Clock]

Actually, drinking it may not be illegal, but being underage and possessing it will get you in trouble. Last I checked, if you're under 18 and are caught with alcohol, you have to wait until you're over 18 to get your license. And if you're under 21, you just pay a fine and spend time in jail if you're a repeat offender.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Bryansix]

That's a backwards argument if I ever heard of one. You would most easily be classified as a defeatist. Basically you argue that since people have been abusing power for ages and getting away with it that we should not even attempt to fight back. In fact you don't even think it is newsworthy and you don't want us talking about it. Wait a second; I just had an epiphany. Either you are an industry shill or you are defeatist. If that's a false dichotomy of the situation then be sure to call me out on it.

The point is that abuse of power, unfair application of the legal system and the justice system is always newsworthy and always worth fighting against. Not only that but the hypocrisy of this situation makes it all the more vulgar. If we got news that the head of MADD had some underage daughters who got drunk after school and they got the beer from their mom then maybe your analogy would make an inkling of sense. As it stands your analogy might as well be comparing asteroids to hemorrhoids. The two things have no relation so the analogy only serves to distract. So back on topic; this man deserves to have his children put on trial, his personal computer confiscated, his name smeared in the mud and his reputation shot to pieces because that is what he supports the RIAA doing in the same situation with consumers. That or he needs to confess that such a strategy is over the top and commit to changing the RIAA's ways.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[spun]

So the solution is to throw up one's hands and say, "Feh. What can you do?" is it? Maybe when someone does something unfair we should instead say, "Hey, that's not fair!" in a very public manner. Using the assumed unfairness of life in order to excuse the unfairness of a particualar action smacks of circular reasoning.

Most people who use the phrase "Life's not fair" should also, for the sake of honesty, add the caveat "and not only don't I want to do anything about it, I don't want you to do anything about it, because then I would have to confront the fact that I am a lazy bastard who would rather be kicked around by life while maintaining the illusion of cynical detachement than actually take a stand against unfairness."

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[tomstdenis]

Thank god for a more sensible drinking age (of 19). Frankly, I'd just favour stronger moving violation penalties. Get caught speeding, suspended license for a month. Get caught drunk driving, license suspended for life, etc... None of this "oh well, he was doing 90 in a 55 but it was exam week so we'll just give you a fine and let you on your way" bullshit...

Driving != right, so get over it.

Also other offenses

Cutting people off, death. High-beams on in the city, DIAF death. Running a red, entrance in the marines.

Tom

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[StringBlade]

There's a difference between being apathetic and choosing your battles. Am I upset that the CEO is showing blatant favoritism? Of course. Am I outraged to protest? Nope.

Let's just say that shouting and pointing fingers at how someone in power is using that power in unfair ways to minor effect (namely, if his kids got sued, they'd get the same "deal" as everyone else and the RIAA would make an additional $3,000 or so) is fairly unproductive.

Now, if I were someone who was being sued for downloading music, then I would have my lawyer get me off the hook on the technicality of the CEO's kids. That would serve two purposes: I would be free to go and make the RIAA pay my legal fees, and the matter would get very public attention (more so than Slashdot alone can provide).

On the other hand, if I'm sued for uploading music, that's a different story. He never claimed his kids were uploading music and it's fairly well-known that the RIAA doesn't really care about downloads if they can stop the uploaders there will be nothing left for others to download.

So again, you have to pick your fights and this is a very small one indeed to get too ruffled about. I'm much more concerned about corporate and political misbehaving that results in massive harm or damage to people in the U.S. and around the world. Everyone can take the high horse and say if they were king, they'd never bend the rules to help their own family and friends but most people would be lying when placed a real situation.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Daemonstar]

It depends on the State. In Texas it is illegal for minors to (ABC Chapter 106):

• Purchase

• Attempt to purchase

• Consume (with exceptions, like in the presence of a parent or spouse that is of legal age)

• DWI

• Possess

• Import

• Misrepresent age

Also:

• Sell to a minor

• Purchase for/furnish to a minor

Of course there are different exceptions for different laws and circumstances (i.e.: a minor may work at a supermarket and stock alcohol-related beverages; a legal-age man can purchase alcohol with his wife who is under the drinking age limit).

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[voice_of_all_reason]

a legal-age man can purchase alcohol with his wife who is under the drinking age limit

However, this coming to light will pretty much ensure him a lifetime registration as a sex offender.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[StringBlade]

My analogy was meant to illustrate that celebrities always have and always will be treated differently in terms of crime and punishment and even in terms of routine events. These days a CEO is as much a celebrity as a Hollywood movie star -- especially the most (un)popular ones that are part of the Corporate Axis if you will, companies behaving badly.

A rock star has a birthday party and it's news. The child of a CEO downloads a song and it's news because they weren't sued. As myself and others have stated in other posts, downloading is not the real target of the RIAA and if they were sued, do you think the CEO would not settle for the same amount as others as quickly as possible? The RIAA is not going to go about smearing the leader of one of their own member labels - that's just flat-out stupid business!

We can argue about general business practices of the member labels separately - the focus of this conversation is the "download confession" and the appropriateness of the punishment. Sure it's unfair and I'd suggest to anyone who's getting sued that they use that as part of their defense strategy to avoid penalties, but I don't think it's worth having a coronary over. There's so many other more important abuses of power that need your energy why not let this public bit of favoritism slide because some amount of it is unavoidable?

If you've been sued and have paid the settlement then you're entitled to outrage. If you haven't then why the pulsing veins on your forehead? Layers upon layers of government around the world are doing much more atrocious things and here we are whining about how a child (or his/her parent) didn't get dragged through the mud because they're running the lawsuit show. Please try to keep a sense of perspective in this matter.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[typobox43]

Because it's a sex offense for a 21 year old man to marry a 19 year old woman. Obviously.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[GrayCalx]

I suppose you'd have fit right in in Germany circa WWII.

For some reason that comment reads to me like something my rambling grandfather would say... so to be nice with a response you just have to agree.

Yes Grandpa, yes, they're all dirty dirty Nazis. Yes that poster on Slashdot was quite the Nazi wasn't he. We know Grandpa, the Bush administration and your first wife were all filthy Nazis too... now put your teeth in and lets eat.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[be951]

Why? Perhaps if she is under 18 (varies by state). But last I checked 18,19 and 20 year olds are adults who can legally do adult things like get married and have sex (with other adults, of course). However, these ages are less than 21 (feel free to check my math if you like...) which is the legal drinking age in most if not all of the United States.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Hijacked Public]

While I don't pretend to know or care what this guy or his kids deserve, or that what they deserve or don't even matters, what do you suggest be done about this particular incident?

Should we march in the streets? Organize a letter writing campaign? Print out a copy of the article and FedEx it to someone who is on trial for illegal sharing of music to use as a defense and hope that the court won't notice that the CEO admitted that his kids downloaded rather than shared music? Maybe we, or as many of us as would fit, hide in his bushes until he leaves for work in the morning and hit him with the face with a pie?

I don't know, maybe all of them.

Or maybe none.

Maybe it won't matter because it is going to be difficult to get enough people together who are fired up enough over the moral inconsistency found in the children of an RIAA company CEO downloading music while the RIAA prosecutes people who share music. I would guess that you will have a hard time getting very many people to pay attention to you long enough to even explain the situation to them, and without a large number of people getting involved neither Warner nor the RIAA nor the AP is going to care. Not while they have actual atrocities to report.

The only thing that will get attention is the thing no one seems to be able to do: Stop buying what Warner sells. Despite all the dander that geeks get up over **AA antics they do not seem to be able to prevent themselves from consuming their content, either by pirating it or by standing in line to see their movies, buy their games, consoles, music, etc.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[crabpeople]

"Oh, and no, I don't know what to do about it either--but dismissing evil behavior offhand is not even a possibility"

Come on man its such a non issue. Everybody knows the game is fixed, the poor get poor, the rich get rich, thats how it goes: And everybody knows

So its not really a newsworthy item, hardly comparable to even the most basic war crimes in iraq or ww2. Let me put it this way, I care just about as much about some multi billionaire ceo downloading songs as I do about any other person downloading songs. I dont care. It doesnt hurt anyone or matter in any way except by people that make a scene - which is what this article is doing.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[tilandal]

I agree. 40000 people die each year in traffic accidents. Most of them involve speeding and/or alcohol. Last I checked 0 people died last year because of copyright infringement.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Dhalka226]

Now, if I were someone who was being sued for downloading music, then I would have my lawyer get me off the hook on the technicality of the CEO's kids.

What now? You do realize that the CEO's kids is not some legal technicality right? If you're arrested for drunk driving, you can argue that there are thousands of people who do it and never get charged all you want--it's true, but it's also not going to get you off the hook.

Since we're specifically talking about a civil matter, and copyright infringement, that introduces even less of a burden for the RIAA to be fair about it. Copyrights aren't patents. You don't have to enforce them. You don't have to enforce them equally (except as precedent may constrain you), or every single time. You're perfectly free to decide, for example, that pursuing a particular case, while you would be right to do so*, is not worth the time and money. Whether or not you feel that some music CEO's kids doing the same thing and getting away with a scolding is unfair or not, it's not a legal argument that's going to matter to a judge. It's going to be struck down as irrelevant the minute you raise it, and rightly so.

I suppose if you were TRULY insane you could try to make some 14th amendment argument, but I give you my not-a-lawyer guarantee (and take that as you will) that it will not get you anywhere. More likely, the judge will tell you to shut the hell up and pay the fine.

You're right about the distinction between uploading and downloading, but it has nothing to do with the CEO's kids. It has to do with the wording of the laws in question.

* As right as you are in any other circumstances, anyway.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[GuyverDH]

At this point however, the RIAA either HAS to sue the kid (or CEO), or they have to DROP all law-suits against now and forever.

Here's the reason.

How long will a court system allow for "Prejudicial" lawsuits to go on?

Thinks about it. All the defendant has to do is quote the artical, and ask "Why me? Why not them? They're prejudiced against me."

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, Meatloaf died because of lack of people purchasing his albums. The RIAA of course blamed it on poor sales due to piracy.

Copyright Infringment = Artist Death

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Tim C]

I suppose you'd have fit right in in Germany circa WWII.

Oh do fuck off will you? It's arguably nepotism, certainly looks very bad and I'd be at the head of the queue to sling mud at him for it - but comparing it to the atrocities of Nazi Germany?

You bloody idiot.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyrights aren't patents. You don't have to enforce them.

And you don't have to enforce patents either. I think you were thinking of trademarks, but even there, there is a point at which being aggressive doesn't really help you and isn't necessary in order to preserve the mark.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[rograndom]

Godwin! thread over

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[TranscendentalAnarch]

While he may not have stated that his kids were uploading music, it is most likely so. Looking at the options available for downloading music there are few that don't automatically share what you've downloaded. With the complete destruction of most music file hosting websites by about 2000/2001, torrents and p2p networks are the only popular options left. While Usenet may be fairly popular among the slashdot crowd, I've yet to run into someone that uses it even among my colleagues at work. (Most of them use torrents)

Basically, unless his kids were downloading via Usenet they are more than likely guilty of "uploading" or sharing music online.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Workaphobia]

Geeze, I wish everyone here could stop complaining. Maybe this would matter if a lawsuit was filed against the CEO and/or his children, and then the RIAA dropped the case after they discovered his identity - Then one might be able to argue special treatment. But since that is not what happened here, there's no basis for implying that you don't have every opportunity to avoid getting caught that he does. It's not like they have a separate IP range reserved for executives above the law.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[xtmno4]

I think as to this particular incident, it is up to the RIAA to decide what to do. If they sue the kids, then they can attempt to continue on their crusade against piracy. However, if they don't sue, then they cannot continue against anyone. It is only their choice,, but depending on the choice it can have some big consequences.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[ch-chuck]

Life's not fair.

That's ok - but I wish it was not fair in my favor every once in a while.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[WilliamSChips]

He compared it to the people who just sat by watching as their Jewish friends were carted off.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer: Who's pressing charges against the kid? You?

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Dhalka226]

So back on topic; this man deserves to have his children put on trial, his personal computer confiscated, his name smeared in the mud and his reputation shot to pieces because that is what he supports the RIAA doing in the same situation with consumers.

And if the RIAA decides to sue him, they are free to do exactly that. They're not going to do so, and we both know it. It's not that he has some sort of legal immunity. This isn't an issue of legal equality. It's an issue of a private entity choosing which battles they want to fight. It's hypocrisy, but little else. (Aside: I wonder if the RIAA can sue him? The RIAA is supposed to be essentially a group working for the record labels; would this be akin to suing yourself?)

So out of curiosity, what would you do? Constrained by the reality of the real world, I mean; so your "have the RIAA sue him or he has to change his ways!" idea is straight out the window--unless of course you can offer a compelling argument why they would do that. You can't force people to file lawsuits if they don't want to, and you really can't force them to file every single lawsuit they might possibly have a legal standing to file. It is utterly impractical.

So, seriously: You're Congress. You're ready to stem this sort of hypocrisy, but this is the only issue we're going to pretend you have the magical willingness to change (ie, the solution can't be to discard the copyright system or rewrite civil tort law or anything like that; it may be a valid discussion to have, but it's overreaching the point). What law do you pass? How do you word it such that it permits action, is fair, but does not force impractical burdens on the petitioners? How do you phrase it such that you don't get it struck down as illegally discriminating against any groups or their legal rights? How do you do all this without causing unintended negative economic effects?

It may seem like a troll. Maybe it is, in part, because I can't think of a good solution myself, but I actually want to know if there is a good answer out there that doesn't involve some major overhaul of a system most people outside of slashdot aren't particularly interested in overhauling. Any reasonable solutions out there? And if not, perhaps the original poster way on up the line was right that this isn't something to be kicking up dust about.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Read, friend, READ.

He's comparing your stance with the stance taken by many Germans who came to know during the war. It may be a little extreme, but it points out exactly what saying 'ah, well' can mean.

This kind of conduct (by the music/movie industry) should be fought, and not shrugged off.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Daemonstar]

In Texas, persons under 18 years old (read: 17 years and younger) can marry with consent of the parents (Family Code 2.003. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE BY MINOR). Besides that, a man who is 21 can purchase alcohol for his 18 year old wife (my friend was 28 when he married his 19 year old wife; he looks about 19, though). Sometimes, Wal-Mart cashiers were stupid and wouldn't sell him alcohol if his wife wrote the check.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[CitznFish]

maybe if you used that lump between your shoulders you would realize that I did offer some insight. Mainly that the original posters comment was moot. It's not only the privileged that get away with things. Why just look at tyou! You're a complete tool and you get away with that!

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Life's not fair.

Exactly. That's why I don't feel the slightest tinge of remorse that I didn't pay a dime for the 200 Gigs of music I downloaded and listen to regularly.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Tim C]

And when people sit by and watch as their friends are carted off to slow, agonising deaths in concentration camps for copyright infringement, then I'll listen. Until then, he's being needlessly sensationalistic.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Bryansix]

Sure, ok. I'm a member of congress and I can draft up whatever legislation I want. Where do I start? Maybe protect fair use. That would prevent 99% of the lawsuits the RIAA files. Then for the other 1% I would design legislation specifically placing the burden of proof on the RIAA or any other accuser before they are allowed to send any kind of notice demanding payment for a supposed copyright violation. I would call the bill the "Anti-extortion" bill. It might be given a nickname like the "Anti-RIAA Bill" but I wouldn't care. My name would appear on the front and as we all know most senators and representatives will not even read it. It will pass easily just based on it's title.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[paeanblack]

As it stands your analogy might as well be comparing asteroids to hemorrhoids. The two things have no relation so the analogy only serves to distract.

No relation? Get either one up your ass and you won't sit down for a week!

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[trix7117]

Answer: Who's pressing charges against the kid? You?

Question: Did I miss your answer?

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Rayin]

Actually you are incorrect. The RIAA, as the copyright holder for much of American music (most likely, we can assume, they hold the copyrights on the music that the children downloaded), has the right to choose who they want to sue, and who they don't want to sue. As unfair as this sounds, it is absolutely necessary for our civil law system to function. For example, you could make the very same argument about .... errr ... a friend of mine. You see, just because the RIAA hasn't sued my friend, who has downloaded a significant amount of music, doesn't mean that they can't sue anyone else. If someone was required to sue EVERYONE who had committed a violation of their copyright in order to sue ONE person who had violated it, tort law would break down pretty fast.

The fact that the downloaders in this case were the children of the Warner Music CEO is irrelevant to anything but a moral argument, although even in this case its not cut and dry. I detest the policies of the music industry as much as the next guy, but much of their heavy-handedness notwithstanding, the underlying issue, that they should be paid for every copy of their product distributed, is morally defensible (although lets not get into the issue of them actually paying the artists a fair amount). For example, lets say I had spent a year developing a computer application for retail. In order to eat/clothe myself/pay rent/etc, I would have to recieve compensation. If, however, somone decided to start copying my application and distributing it for free, I would have no problem suing them, and it would take a pretty twisted world-view to argue that the copier is on the moral high ground (assuming the application is consumer-friendly, i.e. free of malware/heavy-handed eulas, etc). I would have no problem suing such a person. However, if I had children, and one of them were to download one of these copies, I certainly wouldn't sue them. I would definantly talk to them, and they would be in trouble, but I wouldn't bring my own children to court over it. And, in not doing so, the pirate that I DID sue for making illegal copies does not gain the moral high ground, nor do I forfeit it. Its a simple matter of treating my family better than I would a stranger, and I hardly think that that is unusual or detestable.

This dragged on longer than I expected, but the bottom line is this: The RIAA is no saint, but ultimately, while their means are in many cases despicable, their most underlying claim: that they have the right to compensation for all distributions of their music, is not. And, just because this CEO didn't sue his children, but is suing strangers for the same thing is not neceassarily reprehensible, nor is it unjust, and it certainly won't invalidate any of the lawsuits in court. I would imagine that in a similar position, most of us would do the exact same thing.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[StringBlade]

Creating a bill called "Anti-RIAA" is going to get shot down very quickly in Congress. I think you underestimate how many Senators are in the RIAA's pocket and with a title like that you'd certainly draw attention to it ensuring it's demise.

Likewise, we already have "anti-extortion" laws in place stemming from organized crime and monopolies, it would probably not pass because it's redundant.

The answer is very rarely "more laws" -- it's usually "fewer laws" but no one understands that enough and takes action along those lines.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[houghi]

I suppose you'd have fit right in in Germany circa WWII.

I suppose he'd fit right in in USA circa now.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Trespass]

You're either 12 or 80. You're also retarded. 9_9

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Bryansix]

Fine, then I will call my bill the "Anti-Predatory Lawsuits Bill". The idea being that this extortion scheme stems from threatening predatory lawsuits against the defendants. They basically say that they will wreak havoc on their lives whether the defendant is guilty or not only they say it in not so many words and more with reputation. I liken the RIAA to a Mob so maybe I could just get them added to that definition.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Kesh]

I got drunk underaqged

... and apparently stayed that way!

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[dwandy]

Your honor I'm willing to plead guilty in exchange for the penalty of "a stern talking-to from Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman" which is apparently the penalty that Mr. Bronfman believes is appropriate for this offence.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[krotkruton]

I got drunk underage and got caught. It taught me to be more careful when I get drunk underage, and I didn't get caught again. Now if I do something illegal or questionable, like speeding, I'm more careful about doing it to avoid getting caught... so something came of it for me, but on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[dedalus2000]

14+14 seems fair a few corporations owning the rights to almost all music in perpetuity is an absurdity. copyright is not in fact a right it's a useful legal fiction in that it encourages content creation but after a short time that legal fiction becomes a hindrance. for example there's a thing in music called a standard, standards are pieces of music that are widely known and often improvised around. individual artists will write new lyrics to them change passages or alter melody. this practice though having predated any type of copyright law is largely prevented from occurring. artists can not in fact make use of large sections of the cultural heritage that is rightfully their purview. the story of Cinderella as a very notable example has crossed continents and taken on culturally significant undertones but any modern retelling is under Disney's legal eye. though i don't see Britney Spears latest ode to cousin love ever becoming a standard there are significant modern works that will never under current US law see further development or refinement.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[bill_kress]

Your post was kinda interesting and misguided, so I'll reply just to you.

I don't really give a crap about comparing to Nazis, and I didn't. I think it has been done.

But I am somewhat fascinated by the concept of how a people might come to allow or desire something like that. In other words, Hitler wasn't the story, the people of Germany--and others--are. (There was an article today about the Vatican knowing about the atrocities much earlier than they admitted and ignoring them)

The thing that is really interesting is that we are still the exact same people. We haven't evolved. Our education isn't all that much better (at least in most of America an many third-world countries). The world is really just was charismatic leader away from complete disaster.

Having grown up in the 70's where the cold war was more a joke than a scare, and future war was unimaginable, this concept came as a complete surprise to me.

So when I see people acting with utter disregard for the destruction of other families via the RIAA, lack of healthcare or housing costs with something like "life's not fair"; I can't help but think--worse than Hitler, this is the person who allowed Hitler.

I mean, there are millions (well, at least thousands. Would you believe hundreds?) of people that you could stick in the whitehouse that could screw up as bad as Bush. The crime isn't being one of those people, it's putting one in power.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[bill_kress]

I thought the story was about the comparison between the Billionaire downloading songs and the poor people he is destroying with legal fees for doing the same thing--and not even pretending that he is "one of them".

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[bill_kress]

So you really don't think anyone is being harmed by losing a years wages, possibly their health-care rent or utility money? Do you just have no ability to consider anything outside your own life, or are you woefully uninformed?

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Next you'll be telling me that the President's daughters got drunk underage but nothing came of it.

Well...

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Anonymous Coward]

because then it wouldn't cause shock & awe in the minds of joe and jane public

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[shark72]

"Wasnt there a little girl who got sued over dowloading music?"

Yup, because her mom had put her ISP bill in her daughter's name. Likewise, if you saw fit to sue another business, and the business owner had put the business in their dog's name, then you'd have sued a dog. You would not have deliberately sued a dog, and the RIAA did not deliberately sue a minor. In many other cases, the parent has been sued or threatened due to the downloading activity of a kid in the house.

"Didnt her parents have to pay some rediculous settlement?"

I believe her mom settled for the standard $3K, even though the girl made some sort of public apology. She (along with some other kids whose families were sued) later appeared in a Pepsi ad during their first iTunes promotion. Pepsi paid her well over $3K, so it's a happy ending of sorts.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Anonymous Coward]

I got drunk underage many many times and nothing came of it-your point?
An on-topic aside.
I do not understand why there is anything wrong in anyones moral/ethical system with obtaining free copies of music that is not-and will not- be commercially available.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Have Blue]

Last time I checked fair use didn't protect what these alleged pirates are doing. Fair use should protect format, space, and time shifting, not uploading. And the outrage at these lawsuits should be over the ludicrous penalties requested, the standard of proof or lack thereof, and the effective barratry, and the fact that the sad state of copyright law means they will continue for the foreseeable future.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Vr6dub]

HA!! We got you!

NO!!!!...you posted as AC.

I'll get you next time AC!!

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[aussie_a]

Here's a question: Which is more stupid, the kid getting a stern talking to or the parent being sued for a ridiculous amount of money?

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[aussie_a]

I believe her mom settled for the standard $3K Sounds like a ridiculous settlement to me.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The RIAA's lawsuits against end users are not based on "uploading". They have no evidence of any uploads. Their lawsuits are based upon their concept that it is a copyright infringement to have files which are "available" for uploading. See Elektra v. Barker, scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007. (See Slashdot discussion)

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[no_space_in_time]

Oh, what became of all those time you were drunk whilst a teenager, did you publicly bring shame to your family? No? I think the all Bush's were shamed.

Now, if you're a Kennedy...

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Rayin says: "The RIAA, as the copyright holder for much of American music (most likely, we can assume, they hold the copyrights on the music that the children downloaded), has the right to choose who they want to sue, and who they don't want to sue.

1. They don't own copyrights on the music, just the recordings. Other people own the copyrights on the music.

2. Not every copyright infringement warrants a lawsuit. These people should be given the opportunity to enter into cease and desist agreements to avoid lawsuits.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Have Blue said "Last time I checked fair use didn't protect what these alleged pirates are doing."

The RIAA hasn't alleged, and couldn't allege, piracy in these cases. These cases have nothing to do with piracy. They have to do with having a shared files folder on a computer.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[John Pfeiffer]

Stealing PlayStation 3s, on the other hand, DOES kill.
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl e?AID=/20061203/NEWS/612030440/1004/news01

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[SineWave]

Maybe it won't matter because it is going to be difficult to get enough people together who are fired up enough over the moral inconsistency found in the children of an RIAA company CEO downloading music while the RIAA prosecutes people who share music. Excuse this post for being patently trite.

There's something colloquially known as the Slashdot Effect. It's when a horde of us become fixated upon a particular point of interest. Traditionally, said point of interest is located on a webserver, and said horde proceeds to overwhelm the serving capacity of the point of interest in question. We've got the numbers.

Back to the matter at hand, the (seemingly Orwellian) irony of this makes me shudder -- you know, like Lewis-Black-aneurysm-style. I'll go ahead and posit that I'm not alone in this reaction.

So, what say (amongst all of us hardcore geeks), someone puts up a web form, ala "Mail your Congressperson", that would submit one's outraged, empassioned dissent regarding this to 5 major national newspapers? Anyone game?

"People" complain all the time about their inability to effect change because they're just an individual, but this is Slashdot, for fuck's sake. That's gotta be like, the fourth largest army in the world. Sarcasm aside, what all of us are witnessing here is real freedom of assembly by an informed populace (yes, I know this is Slashdot, and there's a certain percentage of those who in general don't RTFA, but you get my point).

My point is that we've got the numbers, but not the will to make ourselves heard on this matter. I'm serious about the webform, but I'll admit I don't have the basic knowledge to put such a thing together (shame on me). Especially one that could handle that kind of traffic.

This is a unique community, one with (sometimes) clear consensus regarding many disparate issues. Here's my vote for Slashdot moving from "Just the Facts, maam" reporting to directly sponsoring activism within the community it has fostered. You know, like, at the bottom of the story there's a "direct your outrage here" link. And if not, someone, please, step up and provide a vector for our voices to be heard on this particular issue; hypocrisy genuinely sickens me more than anything else in this world.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Anonymous Coward]

If we got news that the head of MADD had some underage daughters who got drunk after school and they got the beer from their mom then maybe your analogy would make an inkling of sense.

Sorry I can't find the citation, but I'm quite sure that a former president or other high officer of MADD had to quit after she was convicted of a DUI. Yet the lunatic bitches shreik on.

This nation is on a very dangerous path when attempts are mad to stamp out anything fom mosquitoes to drugs. It leads to all sorts of insanity. Zero tolerance policies (as MADD wants*) are the most poisonous. Police forces across the nation are reaping great profits from these policies. They get seized property and money for their own use when they attribute either to drug profits, well before any kind of a trial. If they want to seize a particularly nice boat, all they have to do is "discover" a few pot seeds or stems in an obscure corner.

One young girl was suspended from school on a zero tolerance drug policy when she gave a friend with menstrual cramps one fucking Midol tablet.

*"...we do not want to overlook the casual drinker. If you choose to drink, you should never drive. We will not tolerate drinking and driving-period."

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[WgT2]

Hopefully.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[WgT2]

his children have suffered the full consequences of their actions

Not until the RIAA sues them for unjust amounts of money for each song they have and might have downloaded illegally.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no one knows what that means?

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life

[GrayCalx]

The kids of today should defend themselves against the 70s.

neat

[tont0r]

Hopefully I can get my dad to give me a stern talking to after I rob a bank.

Re:neat

[malraid]

As long as your father is the owner of the bank, it should be viable. Otherwise, no chance.

Re:neat

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I gave my kids a very stern talk about stealing music. From now on you can be sure that they will (1) make sure they don't get caught and (2) share the good stuff with me. By good stuff, I don't mean rap.

Re:neat

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember much looting of savings and loans in the 1980's. Friends in high places worked for some but not for others.
Compare the experiences of Charles Keating and Neil Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_cris is

Re:neat

[Surt]

Sorry, but in the US banks (with a k) are extremely heavily regulated, so you can't get away with this even if your father owns the bank.

Re:neat

[Anonymous Coward]

Owner of A bank apparently. These kids probably didn't only "steal" music from Warner.

Re:neat

[emor8t]

Ah, but a bank is a corporation in a sense, no? Since when, especially lately, have American companies not "cooked the books"? and embezzled millions of dollars. And really, isn't "embezzled" just another fancy name for copy-right infringement?

Re:neat

[Pojut]

How does that saying go? "You can't spell crap without rap"

Re:neat

[Workaphobia]

It's bad enough that people can equate piracy to theft, let alone a full-blown bank heist.

Re:neat

[WilliamSChips]

rap is missing a c. Or an e, at the other end.

Re:neat

[maxume]

Your best bet is to rob his bank.

Re:neat

[Anonymous Coward]

Compare the experiences of Charles Keating and Neil Bush.

It is somewhat difficult to do when Neil Bush isn't even mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[SilverJets]

They should begin an investigation into this and see if it is true. If it is they need to begin a legal case against the offender. This would send the message that the RIAA is looking for far more powerfully than chasing after someone's grandmother.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[StringBlade]

Chances are any "investigation" would result in no substantial evidence of infringement. After all, it said they downloaded music not uploaded it, and as I recall it's the distribution that the RIAA is mostly concerned about even though they'll say they're concerned with both.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[DrLang21]

Actually the RIAA would do well to press charges. It would be evidence that their witch hunt is principled and not some grab for power. But then, I guess we are seeing the evidence against that.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[emor8t]

Absolutely. After they go after him, they can go after Ted Turner's and Richard Branson's relatives too. Then the rest of record label exec's. Meanwhile, I'll continue my ban on going to the movie theater and buying any cd that has come out in the past 5 years. (Ok, so I don't actually do this, but maybe I should?)

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a great many parents that admit that their children are sharing music online. Hopefully it will soon be realized that this is of greater benefit to society than the enforcement of copyright law that is contradictory to the principle of fair use.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[Ahnteis]

Would be a great PR move -- and for THOSE children, a few thousand from daddy's pocket wouldn't hurt them at all. With any luck though, daddy is too greedy to go for it and so we won't have to worry about that perception of fairness.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[squiggleslash]

Yeah, I can see this working. RIAA sues father. Father says "Oh noes. I'm in exactly the same situation now as thousands of P2P pirates who have also been threatened with lawsuits. I don't like it, but at least this proves the system works."

Then he, the CEO of Warner, reaches into his back pocket, pulls out fifty thousand dollars, peels off $3,000, and hands the $3,000 "fine" to the RIAA lawyer.

Yeah, that's going to be really convincing...

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[russ1337]

If you settle out of court with the RIAA you are not settling with the artist (and the settlement says that) Sooooo... the artist could still sue... which in this case would be an awesome move.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[Tebriel]

Except the artist probably doesn't hold the rights to that song, or at least that performance of it.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[zappepcs]

This sentiment, my friend, is exactly what you should be doing. The RIAA thinks file sharing is evil. Wait till we all start sharing our CD's amongst our friends. They absolutely cannot afford to stop us, investigate us, or prosecute us. Say you have 15 friends, and you each buy a CD, then share the cost by letting your friends 'borrow' the CD you bought. So, for the cost of blank media (say 50 cents each) and a CD (say $15) you end up getting 16 CDs for a cost of $22.50. If there are an average of 12 songs on each CD, that is a whopping 11.7 cents per song. I think we can all afford that price. Better yet???? NO DRM if you copy it right.

So now, all you need is 15 friends... viola! it works if you only have 8 or 10 friends too. Lets see the RIAA try to bust up 470,000 'file sharing rings' in North America alone! When it becomes too costly, they will stop. The Internet and P2P just made it too easy to not prosecute.

If they really want to make this music thing tough, fight back, get offline with the sharing part. Downloading stats will fall, and CD sales will fall. No municipality, state or federal agency can afford to start sniffing out little Jennifer down the street for sharing her CDs with friends.

So downloading is illegal... meh... so what! I still don't pay huge money for music!!

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[deblau]

As long as people keep settling for $thousands, it will never become too expensive. As long as people are actually infringing, it doesn't make sense to fight. Lather, rinse, repeat until everyone is $thousands poorer. The only real solution is to not download music, which is what I do. I don't buy music either, and I haven't for years. I imagine I won't until the record labels stop being such greedy asshats.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[Gromius]

Given that I pay 25 cents a song (actually it might have gone up for new people now) and get it legit and DRM free, 11.7 for an illegal copy with the added hassle of doing it yourself doesnt seem that good a deal. Even more so because none of my 25 cents goes to the RIAA (I assume, all the labels are indy). Plus I would have to find 15 friends, cue sad slashdoter joke :)

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[FiloEleven]

There is a service at lala.com that takes this CD sharing idea to the next level, though they explicitly discourage ripping. You input a list of your CD collection and then you will start to see requests from other users for CDs in your list. If you decide to send a CD, simply put it in the provided shipping case & envelope. When you request a CD and it gets sent to you, you pay $1.70 or thereabouts.

I joined a while ago and haven't even gotten around to uploading my collection, but a friend of mine uses lala exclusively and loves it.
-f

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[mojodamm]

Crap. Now all I need are the friends =/

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement

[SeaFox]

Don't they still hold the rights to the lyrics themselves?

plea bargains

[DrLang21]

I wonder if this will set the ball rolling for people to make plea bargins in exchange for "a stern talking-to" as punishment.

Let me explain...

[John.P.Jones]

No, there's to much, let me sum up...

Life's not fair.

Re:Let me explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there's to much, let me sum up...

Life's not fair.
 
That's enourmously funny cause it's exactly the phrase I have in mind when the **AA's complain i've stolen things and they have been unable to do anything about it.

Re:Let me explain...

[Brandybuck]

I agree with you. See my sig.

However, justice and fairness are two different things. The fact that his kids only get a scolding at the same time he's suing other people's kids, is most definitely unjust. The solution is easy: top suing the other people's kids.

Re:Let me explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

there's to much

Sorry to be a nazi, but I think you wanted to say "there's two much." Please be more careful next time.

Re:Let me explain...

[sobachatina]

Anyone who says differently is selling something.

Re:Let me explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Inconceivable!

Re:Let me explain...

[ArsonSmith]

Where as I look at it just the opposite. I'll do everything I can to become rich so that I will get these benefits as well. It's not a problem it's an incentive. And living in a world where 3/4 of the Forbes 500 richest people in the world are all new money (meaning they earned it not inherited it), that is a very achievable Idea. I suggest you do the same. The world will be better of if we all do.

Re:Let me explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, because what the world really needs is more business majors trying to get rich.

Re:Let me explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be much more tragic if life were fair, and the recording industry existed out of necessity.

Re:Let me explain...

[vertinox]

Life's not fair.

Unless, it involves a gun.

Life is whatever the man with the gun says it is.

Unless you disagree with the man with the gun of course. But dead is not really alive and you won't be able to argue with anyone other than the supreme maker about whether life was fair or not.

I think I've paraphrased Mao.

hey **AA

[matt328]

Yeah, I'm not doing that anymore either. Oh wait, I'm not rich and powerful so that doesn't work for me.

corporal corporate

[Brill]

"bright line" ....read: they got belted

Re:corporal corporate

[ultranova]

"bright line" ....read: they got belted

Why would a father punish his children for following in his footsteps? No, what they got was a lecture on "How not to get caught".

Can we seize all his computers at work and home?

[WillAffleckUW]

And insist on receipts for all music - and require that he purchased them, not just "reviewed" them?

And, as is done with most of those persecuted by RIAA, assume he is the one who pirated the music, not his kids?

hello?? - the guy runs a music label

[Van Cutter Romney]

so what? the next time the kid wants an album all he has to do is go to his dad and get it. he could probably get free copies of the album anytime.

Re:hello?? - the guy runs a music label

[TheLink]

Just more evidence that a lot of people download music because its convenient.

So there's a market out there.

Re:hello?? - the guy runs a music label

[Andy_R]

His kids probably wanted some decent independent label music, not the trash that Daddy's marketing department spends millions hyping.

Re:hello?? - the guy runs a music label

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Probably not. They'd probably gravitate towards the free samples that they could squeeze out of their Daddy. Besides, there are enough people buying and pirating to show there is a lot of demand for their music. Why shouldn't the kids (being a not-quite-so-random selection of typical kids) like that music?

Besides, saying that the RIAA's music is trash is like me saying that all Indy music is crappy head-banging rock. It's a matter of taste (and ignorance).

Re:hello?? - the guy runs a music label

[dthree]

so what? the next time the kid wants an album all he has to do is go to his dad and get it. he could probably get free copies of the album anytime. Well, thats exactly what the CEO of Time Warner admitted to.

Wonder if "put on" means purchased or not.

Downloaders not being sued

[cdrguru]

If the music folks wanted to sue everyone that downloaded music, they would need to file against the entire country. Not going to happen.

Instead, they are being fiendishly clever in suing the people that are the suppliers for the downloaders. If you redistribute, you might get sued. Might. About a 1,000 in 300,000,000 chance, or 1 in 300,000. Most criminals take far worse odds in sticking up the neighborhood liquor store.

Re:Downloaders not being sued

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not being clever thats following the laws. You can legally make backups of any cd you own, so if I own a Korn cd I can download it as much as I want because I have the rights to. In order for the RIAA to sue me for downloading a cd they would have to prove that I don't own that cd, which is pretty much impossible.

However, just because I own a cd does not give me the right to freely give the music out to others, thus is why they are suing the uploaders and not the downloaders.

--KallDrexx

Re:Downloaders not being sued

[SpiritGod21]

Wait, no, this is a FANTASTIC idea! Why don't we just sue the telcos who own the tubes? I mean, they (the telcos) want to start charging end users to access the same content the providers are paying to have uploaded (and who wants net neutrality after all?) on the grounds that they own the lines, which means they own what's going across them, doesn't it?

So it's really the telco's fault that music is shared/pirated/down and uploaded.

No worries, though. I'm going to go patent the idea (since I had the thought, it's my intellectual property, and such things are patentable these days) and sue the pants* off the RIAA when they try it ^_^

*Unfortunately, the pants will probably be on fire.

Re:Downloaders not being sued

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the definition and regulations of uploader/downloader/copyright is different to every country's law !

I also believe the general accepted copyright law in this moment has "gaps"(read doesn't comply with RIAA/MPAA rules!) thus is dynamically adjusted and anything can be stated.

Heh... there are even places where there is no law or prosecution!

Look from Central Europe towards Russia and you'll notice the copyright issues shrinking and totally disappearing at some point.

Thus one should try to look for specific cases in his own country and If someone finds/has a list of what is acceptable and what not in various countries please share it!

Even better maybe the list can be created now!

Re:Downloaders not being sued

[Macadamizer]

You can legally make backups of any cd you own

That is 100% correct.

if I own a Korn cd I can download it as much as I want because I have the rights to

But that isn't. Downloading a song is NOT equivalent under Napster and the other caselaw to creating a backup. Under current caselaw, there is no legal difference between uploading and downloading.

However, just because I own a cd does not give me the right to freely give the music out to others, thus is why they are suing the uploaders and not the downloaders.

Correct, but if they aren't suing downloaders, it's a choice on their part -- they could sue the downloaders, under current law the downloaders are just as liable as the uploaders.

Re:Downloaders not being sued

[Anonymous Coward]

if I own a Korn cd I can download it as much as I want because I have the rights to

But that isn't. Downloading a song is NOT equivalent under Napster and the other caselaw to creating a backup. Under current caselaw, there is no legal difference between uploading and downloading.

I believe you, but why is this the case? I thought that if you owned a copy of a cd, you could make a copy of it (for backup). If your cd drive is broken and you have net access, why is downloading a cd you own forbidden?

Also, are the "uploaders" really uploaders or are they people who put files in a shared folder that can be accessed? I would equate that with leaving your home unlocked. Does the *IAA have the right to tell us how to secure things we own?

Re:Downloaders not being sued

[Macadamizer]

I believe you, but why is this the case?

It's just the way the caselaw has turned out. I'm not sure that anyone has given this a lot of thought in the judiciary -- they have a consistent theory, but it's not really a great theory, in my opinion. Basically, the rule is that you can make and retain a copy of a CD you own, so long as both the original and copy remain in your control at all times (can't lend out the copy, for example, unless you lend the original as well. And can't keep the copy if you give away the original). The theory goes, if you send a digital file across the Internet, it is out of your direct control while it is enroute to wherever it may be going -- this is how they got rid of MyMP3.com, and this is also part of reasoning in Napster and other cases why downloading is illegal.

If your cd drive is broken and you have net access, why is downloading a cd you own forbidden?

It's just the law. I agree 100%, it's a stupid law -- but currently it IS the law. That's basically what MyMP3.com was -- you ripped your CD's up to a host, and then could listen to the MP3's anywhere. Only you could access the CD's you ripped (I believe), and you couldn't access stuff you didn't rip, so it's similar to the situation you described -- and it was found to be illegal under current copyright law, and the website was shut down.

Also, are the "uploaders" really uploaders or are they people who put files in a shared folder that can be accessed? I would equate that with leaving your home unlocked. Does the *IAA have the right to tell us how to secure things we own?

Two points. First, people put things in shared folders knowing they will be accessed -- it's not like the P2P programs sneak into your hard drive to find files to share, you have to allow them access. If you had a garage full of beer, and allowed teenagers to access it freely, you would be liable for providing minors with beer -- that's probably a closer analogy. If P2P or other software actually searched your hard drive for stuff to share without you permission, then I think your analogy to the unlocked door is a closer analogy.

But even then, in most parts of the U.S., if you have a gun and leave it somehow unsecured in your house, and a kid gets in to your house (illegally) and takes the gun and shoots himself or someone else, you could be liable. So there is precedent even for that analogy. Note that I am not comparing downloading songs with shooting people, I'm just usinig this as a sort of property-rights comparison.

Second, although you own the physical CD, you don't own the data on the CD -- you just have a license to use it. Again, 'm not arguing whether or not this is right or wrong, but it is how the current copyright system is set up. Because you don't own the data, the real owner (the ones who licensed you to use the music, the RIAA in this case) probably has more authority to tell you how to store your music. They can't tell you to keep the CD itself locked up, and don't really care if your CD gets stolen, but they do have an interest in the data itself floating around freely. That's another reason why your analogy isn't perfect when it comes to copyrights and the like.

Again, I'm not saying the laws are right, or shouldn't be changed -- they should be, in many cases -- but that's sort of how the law works currently, in the U.S. at least.

Punishment?

[Non-CleverNickName]

Bronfman insists that, after a stern talking-to, his children have suffered the full consequences of their actions.

Screw a stern talking-to.

Screw lawsuits.

I, for one, suggest that he lock his kids in the WB watertower.

Re:Punishment?

[bherman]

But only if they lock the WB Frog in with them

Re:Punishment?

[billsoxs]

"I, for one, suggest that he lock his kids in the WB watertower."

Is that where they put that stupid frog?

(Of course this is off topic. So is the topic.)

Re:Punishment?

[db32]

And have them come out chasing nurses?

Re:Punishment?

[dafz1]

HeLLLOOOOOOOO NURSE!!!

Re:Punishment?

[thebdj]

How is that punishment? Chilling with the Warner Brothers and their sister Dot would ROCK!

Re:Punishment?

[nuzak]

*sigh* of course not. It's where they keep the Animaniacs.

I guess they welded it shut now.

Re:Punishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it seems that the Warner brothers and the Warner sister, Dot, have escaped from the water tower yet again. Today was the dvd releases of volume 2 for both Animaniacs and Pinky and the Brain.

Re:Punishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Around here, Animaniacs references are too few and far between these days.

Well done.

Re:Punishment?

[mark-t]

Indeed... that expression had me puzzled too.

You know, I've _repeatedly_ gotten after a couple of my wife's kids (from a previous marriage... now ages 15 and 20) for unauthorized sharing of copyrighted files since I first noticed them doing it about four or five years ago now, and no amount of talking to them seems to make an iota of difference. It seems like kids simply don't care.

Re:Punishment?

[chrislunter]

I bet those Animaniacs are just his other kids that tried to steal things.

Re:Punishment?

[billsoxs]

Wow I had never heard of this before. - I had to go look at Wiki. (And yes they were locked in the water tower!) I missed this, my kids are either too old or too young for this to have played in our house. I was talking about the dumb frog that they had on the WB television network that folded about 9 months ago....

Re:Punishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

just punishment should be based on how much they are worth. since they sue their customers for tens of thousands of dollars over a couple songs, he should be sued for millions.

and what a wanker, he thinks other peoples kids should have their lives ruined with lawsuits threatening financial ruin. if he thinks thats just he should subject his children to this too.

maybe this should be the precedent. the ceo thinks copyright infringement should be punishable by a stern talking to. that should be the punishment across the board:P

Re:Punishment?

[Arslan ibn Da'ud]

Hopefully that will change now that another Animaniacs & P&TB DVD set just came out.

I'm sorry...what was the topic again?

Download vs Share

[TheFlyingGoat]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the legal cases about downloading music associated with the sharing/upload of music files? As far as I know, nobody has been sued for just downloading music... they've been sued for using programs that upload at least partial copies of the songs (bittorrent, napster, etc). That's how the music companies justify suing for obscene amounts of money... because the files are being sharing amongst a number of other people.

It's still hypocritical, but if I'm right about the circumstances above then calling for his kids to be sued for _downloading_ makes people look stupid.

Re:Download vs Share

[Ahnteis]

They always *publicize* that people are sued for downloading, but you are correct -- they are actually sued for uploading.

Re:Download vs Share

[PFI_Optix]

Not that I download music these days (I really don't) but I'd expect them to prove how many songs I distributed so that I can pay them a fair price. And I'll know if they're lying, because I know what my torrent sharing ratio is.

"Let's see...you distributed 43% of one copy of Achy Breaky Heart, and since these days we have to pay people to listen to it, we owe you...$19.47."

Re:Download vs Share

[Eternauta3k]

Not that I download music these days (I really don't) but I'd expect them to prove how many songs I distributed so that I can pay them a fair price. And I'll know if they're lying, because I know what my torrent sharing ratio is

If they have evidence you uploaded any copyrighted songs at all, you can either:
a)Settle out of court (the usual), they don't have to demand the exact ammount you owe them. They can ask for $5000000 if they want to.
b)Go to court. Spend a lot more in lawyers than you would in a generic out-of-court fee.

Re:Download vs Share

[Dare nMc]

the legal cases about downloading music associated with the sharing/upload of music files?

yes, but when most kids are caught steeling, they have to return to the item they stole.
since they only stole bits, shouldn't they have to repay the bandwith by sharing those files back to at least one other person before deleting?

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

...despite this direct admission of guilt...

Errr, despite *what* "direct admission of guilt"? Can't submitters and editors even read the pieces they copy?

Poor Quality Slashdot Editing

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading music is not stealing.

I gave myself a stern talking to....

[fotbr]

So we're good then, right RIAA?

Text adventure style..

[Rob T Firefly]

You are the head of Warner. You have discovered your children downloading music.

There are children here.
There are illegal MP3s here.
There is a belt here.

Do you:

(W)hip the crap out of them with the belt,
(T)each them how to use TOR like everyone else so they don't get caught again,
(B)us them off to boot camp to learn about DRM,
(G)ive them the keys to your music vaults,
(O)rder the current crop of talentless-yet-popular acts whose souls you own to play a private concert for your children so they see the dazed, strung out, malnourished people they are supposedly stealing from,
(A)dmit that your business model is no longer relevant in modern society,
(S)ue their whiny little asses to make an example of them.

<

Re:Text adventure style..

[Anonymous Coward]

What about tying the belt around the mp3s and using it as a ballast for your children after you throw them out the 40 foot window with the "scenic" overlook of the ocean?

Re:Text adventure style..

[ozbird]

Do you: ...

(L)earn why they didn't think Warner Bros music was worth "stealing"?

Re:Text adventure style..

[Lumpy]

you forgot one....

(L)ook at what they downloaded and see if you want to add it to your collection.

Sorry little timmy, your Buckcherry downloads are not that high of quality, go over here to get some better ones.

Yes timmy, that song "crazy bitch" is about your mother. Now run along. and remember download from open access points in the neighborhood!

Ahh I love fatherhood.

Re:Text adventure style..

[_Sprocket_]

Apparently the "stern talking to" option involves a cheat code.

Re:Text adventure style..

[Anonymous Coward]

North

Re:Text adventure style..

[r3mdh]

I gotta tell ya, this is one of the funniest posts I've read on /. in a long time. Thank you for causing me to shoot Pepsi through my nose. It was worth it.

To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to

[CheeseburgerBrown]

To the general public, download and upload are a special kind of synonym set in which only the former word is employed.

What the headline means is: his kids are sullied by having contact with piracy. The direction of data transit is of concern only to lawyers and nerds.

I, for one, never confuse the terms. But IANAL.

Re:To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to

[TheFlyingGoat]

Correct, which is exactly what I said. He's a hypocrite and his kids are doing wrong, but it's not the same wrong that people are being sued for. Once someone gets sued for downloading music from Usenet, website, or via FTP, then we can talk about how his kids should have been sued. Until then it's simple hypocrisy.

Re:To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to

[CheeseburgerBrown]

Once someone gets sued for downloading music from Usenet, website, or via FTP, then we can talk about how his kids should have been sued...

I suppose I wasn't sufficiently clear.

The fact that their activities were reported as downloading does not reliably imply that they were directly downloading illegally shared music (see my previous post on the ambiguation of "download"/"upload"). What I'm suggesting is that the kids likely used peer-to-peer filesharing software to "download" the material.

I say "likely" because P2P seems to be the default access point between the great unwashed and piracy. Having an account of some l33t FTP server or whatnot is less common than someone launching eDonkey or the nearest equivalent.

In other words, the odds are that the kids were uploading.

Re:To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to

[TheFlyingGoat]

Odds are you're right, but since people on Slashdot claim to be more intelligent than the average person, we should stick to the facts we know and the proper terminology. I don't know how many times I've seen someone refer to illegal downloads as "stealing music" and they're jumped on by a group of users that correctly point out that it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. To the general public, those are the same thing, just as uploading and downloading are the same thing to the general public. To us, they're different because we're smart enough to know the difference.

I'm just suggesting that we avoid becoming hypocrites ourselves so we can properly explain our point of view to people when these topics come up.

Re:To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to

[AK Marc]

but it's not the same wrong that people are being sued for.

Given the manner in which people "download" music (using P2P applications), the implication is that they also uploaded at least some of what was downloaded. Thus, they do/did exactly what it is that Dad is suing people for.

poor understanding of the word direct

[Surt]

but despite this direct admission of guilt

Note that no where in the article was it even suggested that the child/children in question had admitted copying music without authorization from the copyright holder.
(The clear implication was that he had discovered it, perhaps in monitoring their computer usage like a good parent should).

Ah, time to stir the populist pot

[heinousjay]

So, in light of all the people whining about how they can't use this excuse themselves, I have a question:

How many of you are being sued?

I 'no longer do that'

[tverbeek]

I no longer do that. Of course I figured out how the principle of "pay for what you take" applies to music on my own, without a stern talking to by a parental figure.

I can't wait to see the RIAA's new task force

[Weaselmancer]

The "Stern Talking-To" department.

He should pay up, cynically

[jfengel]

The odds are that whatever they were using did some uploading as well as downloading.

The guy probably ought to take a guess about how much was uploaded and pay the full $750 apiece. I'm sure he can afford it. That way he can claim to be evenhanded. It's rubbish, of course, but it avoids letting other people claim favoritism when they're sued.

Don't even take it out of their allowances, so when the next parent comes up in court, he can claim that they expect parents to be responsible for what their kids upload.

In case he misplaced his settlement forms

[shawn443]

http://www.riaa.com/News/newsletter/pdf/sampleAgre ement.pdf

It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[MikeRT]

When I have kids, I plan to tell that while it's technically not stealing, it's just plain dishonest. If a band, regardless of popular, has made music that they like and have copied, they owe the band a good faith effort to pay for the music. What's so hard about that? Even if you think it's not stealing, why is it so hard to say that you should compensate someone for making stuff you like? Don't even try the record label excuse because it actually does help a band out financially if you buy the CD since it helps them get out of debt. Since all of the bands I like are signed to a record label of some size, talk about not supporting the labels is for me, well, cheap.

Now if you want to nail the guy, you should get a reporter to ask him whether or not he classifies his kids' downloading as theft and if so, how does he feel as a father knowing that his kids are thieves. Let his own words save him or hang him high.

As for me, I have to snicker that an industry that has so thoroughly attacked Judao-Christian morality is finally reaping the socialist entitlement mentality whirlwind that it has sewn.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for one, if you don't tell them it's wrong, they're not gonna want as much money from you.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[westyvw]

I think I agree with you and go further.....

If a band, regardless of popular, has made music that they like and have copied, they owe the band a good faith effort to pay for the music. What's so hard about that?

Because I made the copy and shared it. Thats good advertising. The right thing to do would be to compensate me for my time and effort. I think 1% of all future ticket sales is enough. I shouldn't have to come after the band for the money, they should do the right thing and send me the cut. Anything else is just dishonest.

See how this is all just points of view? Sad that money makes the "moral" point of view.

BTW: for this reason I only listen to and share music where bands realize this and are in agreement to allow trading.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Anonymous Coward]

When I have kids, I plan to tell that while it's technically not stealing, it's just plain dishonest. If a band, regardless of popular, has made music that they like and have copied, they owe the band a good faith effort to pay for the music.

Which is why I always download music from bands I hate. Sure, forcing myself to listen to it is a sacrifice, but I feel that if I can punish them in any way, it will be worth it.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

If a band, regardless of popular, has made music that they like and have copied, they owe the band a good faith effort to pay for the music. What's so hard about that? Even if you think it's not stealing, why is it so hard to say that you should compensate someone for making stuff you like?

If I walk past someone on the sidewalk playing guitar, and I enjoy his playing, then throwing a couple bucks in his guitar case is a nice way to reward him for making my day more pleasurable and encourage him to keep playing... but I still don't owe it to him. It's voluntary. Why should a band be treated differently?

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[RsG]

As for me, I have to snicker that an industry that has so thoroughly attacked Judao-Christian morality is finally reaping the socialist entitlement mentality whirlwind that it has sewn.

Huh?

Did we go and redefine socialist already? Because I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The most common complaints about the music biz are just the opposite. The commercialization of music, the willingness to do anything to make a buck, the aggressive marketing hype, the overpriced CDs, the glorification of bestselling multi-millionaires - none of these are notably socialist traits. These things are very much capitalism - make a product, market the hell out of it, get rich in the process. Artists who've got more money than they know what to do with are put on a pedestal. Where do you see socialism in popular music?

You could say the music industry is acting as a cartel and stifling real market competition. I'd buy that line of reasoning. But that isn't socialism, it's good old fashioned greed coupled with abuse of power.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[berj]

Oh for pete's sake... do you *actually* believe this?

There's a huge difference. The street musician is giving his stuff away for free and asking for a kind donation. The label musician is *selling* his stuff. Do you honestly not see a difference?

People give away newspapers all the time (either promotions or actually free papers). Does that mean you're entitled to a copy free of charge from every paper at any time? I mean they're just sitting there in the box.

Please.. get your head examined.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Jtheletter]

I think you missed the original poster's point, when he said "an industry that has so thoroughly attacked Judao-Christian morality is finally reaping the socialist entitlement mentality whirlwind that it has sewn." The 'socialist entitlement mentality' bit doesn't refer to the music industry, but to the public at large who are using P2P and the like to share music. The common defense of which is usually something along the lines of "I want it but not for the price/restrictions that the music industry is demanding so I'll take it anyway and say 'damn The Man.'" That's the entitlement mentality at work. Now, whether or not this was brought on by the music industry attacking judeo-christian morality I'm not so sure. I think it's more a combination of having a highly demanded product, operating using monopoly and cartel business practices, creating artifical scarcity of something that is at the same time seemingly ubiquitous, and complaining about lost revenue while simultaneously raking in cash hand over fist. Not to mention extremely confusing and ever-shifting definitions of what, exactly, the consumer has purchased when they "buy" an album - is it licensed? is it owned? Do I own the song data or just the physcial CD? - and the rights that would therefore come with that product.

Anyway, I think the ubiquity of popular music coupled with the absurdly minimal costs of data copying today is what has lead people to feel entitled to music, if not free, then at least a lot cheaper then they can legally get it for. And really, can you blame us? The cost of an album hasn't really gone down for decades even though we can prove that one of the biggest costs to the music industry - distribution and physical media - has gone to nearly zero in the same period. That's the underlying problem the RIAA needs to address. People are on to their game and we aren't very happy about being manipulated into playing along.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[berj]

Oh man. I'll ask what I asked someone before. Do you *actually* believe this?

I put .25 into the newspaper box. I take 2 copies.. near the end of the day, mind you.. and the box is nearly full.. so those copies are just gonna be recycled.. I'm not depriving them of any income.

Now.. I give that second copy to someone.. that's advertising.. maybe he'll like the paper so much that he'll start buying it. I mean.. the newspapers themselves give copies away as advertising.. why shouldn't I?

Again.. I repeat what I said to someone else: get your head examined.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[cpt kangarooski]

Even if you think it's not stealing, why is it so hard to say that you should compensate someone for making stuff you like?

I like the works of Shakespeare. Do you think I should be obligated to pay his estate? I don't. This is not to say that I'm opposed to copyright; I'm for it, given the right circumstances and the right laws. But I disagree that people inherently owe artists anything merely because they created something. This morning, I walked past a bakery, and I enjoyed the smell of baking bread, but I'm not about to give them any money for it.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

There's a huge difference. The street musician is giving his stuff away for free and asking for a kind donation. The label musician is *selling* his stuff. Do you honestly not see a difference?

The only difference is in the musicians' attitudes. One of them demands payment, the other hopes for donations; but in both cases, the music has already been performed by the time anyone makes a decision about paying for it, and if the listeners decide not to pay, they haven't taken anything away from the musicians. Listening for free has exactly the same consequences in both cases.

People give away newspapers all the time (either promotions or actually free papers). Does that mean you're entitled to a copy free of charge from every paper at any time? I mean they're just sitting there in the box.

Now it's my turn to ask: do you honestly not see a difference?

Newspapers can only be in one place at a time. If I take a newspaper out of the box, that's one less newspaper that can be sold to someone else. If I take one, I have to compensate the owner for the loss of his newspaper. Music, on the other hand, cannot be taken away simply by listening to it or downloading it. You don't owe anyone compensation for listening to their song, because they still have everything they had before you heard it.

Now, if you can come up with a way to take a newspaper out of a box without reducing the number of newspapers in the box, then I'll reconsider my answer. I'll also nominate you for a Nobel Prize.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Jinjuku]

You people REALLY scare me. Just because a musician produced something that isn't a tangible object doesn't mean you have some sort of ass backwards idea that you shouldn't have to pay. If you want what the artist created. YES, within copyright, you SHOULD pay for it.

The bakery isn't selling smells, they are selling bread. Swipe a loaf and see what happens.

The scary part is how morally corrupt most of the slashdot community is. I would love to have all the people here that produce a commercial package (like I do) shoot me a link to their website. This is so I can download a demo,and crack it. Hey, it's ok. Coders are artists also, and you don't inherently owe them anything MERELY BECAUSE THEY CREATED something. I wish I could interpret your post some other way. But I can't.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Jinjuku]

I couldn't agree with you more. The moral interpretude exhibited on slashdot is NOTHING short of frightening.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Sinbios]

The difference is the musicians' expectations. Commercial musicians perform the music not out of goodwill, but because they EXPECT TO BE PAID AFTERWARDS. If this was not true they probably would not have performed the music you are refusing to pay for.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[westyvw]

No, you just need to move out of the past and into the present. Your analogy doesn't apply. Lets say I took 1 paper, and then I read it to someone Thats not advertising, but its not stealing either. Now lets say someone was standing their and recorded what I said so they could share it with someone later, again, not stealing. There never was more then 1 paper in my possession.

Again...Wake up, its time to move on and realize that information is going to move between people freely, its the RIGHT thing to do.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

OK, so we agree that the only difference is in the musicians' heads, but you seem to think their thoughts have the power to force an obligation on other people.

If I build a snowman in my front yard with the expectation that everyone else on the block will pay me for adding some holiday charm to the neighborhood, does that mean they owe me money? Or does your logic only apply to music for some reason?

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Hatta]

As for me, I have to snicker that an industry that has so thoroughly attacked Judao-Christian morality is finally reaping the socialist entitlement mentality whirlwind that it has sewn.

Jesus was a socialist.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Hatta]

I put .25 into the newspaper box. I take 2 copies.. near the end of the day, mind you.. and the box is nearly full.. so those copies are just gonna be recycled.. I'm not depriving them of any income.

Now.. I give that second copy to someone.. that's advertising.. maybe he'll like the paper so much that he'll start buying it. I mean.. the newspapers themselves give copies away as advertising.. why shouldn't I?

Good question. I take it by your tone that you have an answer for that?

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

I am guessing you sneak into the movies. I mean, they can't be taken away simply by viewing or downloading it.

You guessed wrong. Although the movie itself can't be depleted, the theater is a physical place, and there's only so much room inside. That means someone has to decide who can be in the theater and who can't; that "someone" is the owner of the theater, and if he wants to only let in the people who've bought tickets, that's his right. Trespassing is basically equivalent to stealing, in that there's something which can only be used one way at a time, and you're violating the owner's right to decide how it will be used.

Now, having said that, I'll make you the same offer: if you can come up with a way to sneak into a theater without depriving anyone else of the ability to be there--that is, without occupying any space inside the theater--then I'll reconsider my answer and also nominate you for a Nobel Prize.

As long as we're talking about movies, here's an analogy that's a little closer to what I was talking about: suppose I work on the 10th floor of an office building, right across the street from a drive-in theater. If I'm working late, I can look out my window and watch a movie for free (and maybe even hear it, if they use an FM broadcast for the sound). Looking out my window doesn't deprive anyone of anything, so is it wrong to do that? I don't think so.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[cpt kangarooski]

If you're going to be scared, be scared for the right reasons.

I don't care that creative works are intangible. That has nothing to do with anything. The reason that I don't think that artists have an inherent right to their creations is because they're nonrivalrous, because I think that it can't coexist with the inherent freedom of speech, and because such a right would conflict with how creative works behave and are treated naturally. OTOH, those are reasons why there is no such thing as an inherent copyright. I have no qualms with giving artists artificially created copyrights, so long as it serves the public interest to do so.

The bakery isn't selling smells, they are selling bread.

They would if they could. Similarly, if I had a really nice house, and increased the property values of my neighbors' houses simply due to their proximity to my house, I can't demand a share of it. The truth of the matter is that merely causing something to increase in value, or creating something valuable, is not enough, by itself, to always result in your having rights to that new value.

I wish I could interpret your post some other way. But I can't.

Clearly you could have, since you didn't interpret it correctly to begin with.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[RsG]

Well, even going by that argument, I'd say "socialist" is entirely the wrong word.

Want another interpretation? The music industry is unabashedly greedy. They screw over their customers and their artists, all while reaping enormous profits, and remaining free from legal consequence. This tells the public that "greed is good". So the public responds in kind.

The line of thinking is more like: "You want to gouge me 20 bucks for a DRM infested piece of plastic? I'd rather just download it. Greed works for those in the music biz, why not for me, the consumer?" What you call "entitlement mentality", others call "fighting fire with fire". There's nothing socialist about it.

I don't agree with this mentality myself. I've essentially stopped buying new music, and I don't pirate it either. This has nothing to do with any nebulous "judao-christian ethics" and everything to do with my own moral compass.

But calling the public mentality on file sharing "socialist" is utterly, utterly wrong; in reality it's the old idea of two wrongs making a right. It's responding to greed with greed. If you dislike greed, then by extension you have to look at both sides as being in the wrong (and the music industry far more so than the pirates).

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Jinjuku]

Well, you are certainly good(not)at ignoring the whole download part of my reply. Not that I would let you off the hook that easy.

Your argument about a drive in theater and 10 story building is tenous at best and doesn't rise to a level of credibility in a philosophical debate. You're just throwing up chaff, there is an exception to every rule (or Law if you ask my biology professor).

I just called a musician buddy and asked him if someone copied his music instead of buying it, if that constituted theft. He said yes. I agree. So, why don't you copy something of mine, then come on over and tell me how you didn't deprive me of income. Maybe I will only smash you in the face once or twice.

I have plenty of paying customers that refer our software to others. So no, I don't feel the need for the morally bankrupt to "advertise" it for me.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

I put .25 into the newspaper box. I take 2 copies.. near the end of the day, mind you.. and the box is nearly full.. so those copies are just gonna be recycled.. I'm not depriving them of any income.

You're depriving them of newspapers. Those papers are theirs to dispose of as they wish. Maybe they'll change their minds at the last minute and sell them to the papier-mache piñata factory, or grind them up into filler for McDonald's patties... or maybe they'll recycle the papers just like every other day, but the point is, those papers can only be in one place at a time, and where they go is for the owner to decide.

Information, however, has no such limitations. No one needs to have an exclusive right to decide how it'll be used, because it can be everywhere at once.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

Well, you are certainly good(not)at ignoring the whole download part of my reply.

Oh, you mean the words "or downloading"? I didn't realize you were trying to make a separate point.

Downloading movies is no different from downloading music: it doesn't deprive anyone of anything. And just in case you're about to ask, it's the same with downloading TV shows, programs, text files, PDFs, and really anything else that can be downloaded.

I just called a musician buddy and asked him if someone copied his music instead of buying it, if that constituted theft. He said yes. I agree.

Too bad you and your buddies don't get to decide what constitutes theft, huh? I just consulted the Supreme Court's case history, and they said copying isn't theft (Dowling v. United States). If you don't mind, I'll take their word over yours.

So, why don't you copy something of mine, then come on over and tell me how you didn't deprive me of income. Maybe I will only smash you in the face once or twice.

You know, it might be worth it, just so I could see you go to jail for assault. No wonder your posts are starting off at zero - do you have a long history of threatening violence over differences of opinion?

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Jinjuku]

Actually, I counldn't interpret it any other way. You are so far out there in your analogy... I am scared for the right reason. That is that you have a slight break with the realities of the value prospect of a persons work, talent, time, and investment to produce a product that while not physical in form, still has significant value none the less. This is value that you dismiss so out of hand that again: Yes, I am scared.

I am not making an argument that if a bakery could sell the "smell" they would. You did that. I honestly don't know where you intended to go with that. Bakeries sell baked goods. They are not "Smelleries".

"The truth of the matter is that merely causing something to increase in value, or creating something valuable, is not enough, by itself, to always result in your having rights to that new value."

SURE I DO! Hello? To use your analogy of realestate. If I put in new grass, a picket fence and some nice plants. Spend $6000, and reap $12000 more when I sell my house... SO what if your neighbor's house went up in value? Value was created (perceived or otherwise) and there was a reward. Now if no one is willing to pay ADDITIONAL, then I as an investor simply made a mistake. What a weak and pathetic argument. I know that you didn't ask Van Halen to produce music either. But it doesn't mean that you get access to his works in electronic form (or any other form). If you want access to it any time you want it, you pay for it.

The truth is that market places determine value. NOT YOU the individual. It is a mass movement afair. It proved the case with iTunes. If you can develope a market that is win/win/win (the consumer, the labels, the artist)giving it away I am all for it. You don't create markets through theft though... You make jails for that.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Jinjuku]

Your talking law, I am talking moral imperative. Laws come and go, nations and republics rise and fall. I catch you stealing something of mine (I don't need SOCUS to explain it for me) you will get the stuffing kicked out of you. I really don't care about Dowling v. United States.

You take something of mine with out asking...Which is what it is, SOCUS or no SOCUS.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[cpt kangarooski]

That is that you have a slight break with the realities of the value prospect of a persons work, talent, time, and investment to produce a product that while not physical in form, still has significant value none the less.

Oh, I know it has value. If a work was valueless, as most are, then no one would want to make unauthorized copies of it in the first place. What I'm saying is that in the case of creative works, the creator does not have an inherent right to monopolize that value merely because he's the creator. He may have an artificial right to do so, but that's something he has to be given, rather than something he naturally has.

SO what if your neighbor's house went up in value?

It means that when you spent money, it not only increased the value of your house, but also the value of the house next door. Since that increase in value is attributable to you, not the neighbor, if there was a natural right to that value by the person responsible for it, you would have a right to to get money from your neighbor if he sold his house. But in the real world, you don't. This casts great doubt on your apparent position that creating value goes hand in hand with a natural right to it in all circumstances.

If you want access to it any time you want it, you pay for it.

Having already pointed out that the artist's right to get paid isn't a natural right, but an artificial one that can be removed, imposed, or altered arbitrarily, the question then is this: Why should I pay for it? What's in it for me? How am I better off paying for it than just downloading it for free? Since I'll always do whatever is best for me (just as artists will always do what is best for them), all you have to do is show me how I am left better off paying for it.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Jinjuku]

If that is the way you think... WOW. I hope you get burglerized tonight. Since a thief could obviously think that why buy a stereo system when I can just jack this guys house... You are scary indeed.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[hamelis]

no.. Markets determine prices. Individuals determine values. You need to take a introductory micro class, then come back.

Yes, I am an economist.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[berj]

yes.. I do have an answer for that. It's *their* choice to give away/do with their papers whatever they want. I, however, don't have that right.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[berj]

No.. recording your broadcast (or photocopying the paper) and distributing it isn't stealing but it damned well *is* copyright infringement and it damned well is illegal, immoral and being a jerk.

I've always said that if you're not willing to pay the price that people are asking for something and unwilling to play by the rules that they set down for its use.. then *don't* consume it. Don't buy it.. don't download it.. don't listen to it. But to think that you actually have a *right* to have that content (or whatever) is just justification for the fact that you *don't want to pay* for it. ie. you're being cheap.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[berj]

But what if the theatre's mostly empty? Then you're not depriving anyone of anything. Sorry.. it just doesn't wash.

re: my newspaper argument.

OK then.. pull a copy out of the box (paid for), take a digital photograph of every page (high res, mind you). Burn a bunch of CDs and start selling/handing them out in front of said newspaper box. You *really* don't think this is a problem that the newspaper should be able to bust you for? (and no.. I *don't* think it's stealing).

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

Sure... and after you kick the stuffing out of someone for copying bits without your permission, just try telling the cops "laws come and go". I'm sure that'll go over well.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

But what if the theatre's mostly empty? Then you're not depriving anyone of anything. Sorry.. it just doesn't wash.

Sure you are. You don't get to decide, on behalf of the theater owner, that the space you'd take up isn't enough for him to worry about; that's for him to decide. If he gets some weird thrill out of seeing empty seats, that's his right too. The unavoidable fact is that if you're in the theater, you're limiting to some extent what the owner can do with it - depriving him of the ability to use his property as he wishes.

OK then.. pull a copy out of the box (paid for), take a digital photograph of every page (high res, mind you). Burn a bunch of CDs and start selling/handing them out in front of said newspaper box. You *really* don't think this is a problem that the newspaper should be able to bust you for?

No, I don't; you might be making it harder for them to sell newspapers, but you aren't really taking anything away from them. I don't think they should be able to stifle your free speech (i.e. prevent you from sharing the data on those CDs) just because your ability to speak makes it harder for them to sell papers.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Jinjuku]

Value as in prices, duh... Ya, sure your an economist.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Sinbios]

Except the musicians aren't broadcasting their works (not all of them, anyway... you don't pay for radio) to the public, they specify a format in which you are supposed to receive them whereby you pay for CDs. On the other hand, people can't help but see your snowman, which is like musicians performing in public and demand people pay for it; people don't have a choice in whether they WANT to receive the musician's works.

A better analogy is a circus; the circusmaster sets up acts to be performed because he expects that people will pay for it. But if everyone sneaks into the tent and nobody pays for the entrance, the circus won't be putting on any more acts.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference is in the musicians' attitudes. One of them demands payment, the other hopes for donations; but in both cases, the music has already been performed by the time anyone makes a decision about paying for it, and if the listeners decide not to pay, they haven't taken anything away from the musicians. Listening for free has exactly the same consequences in both cases.

No the difference is that one of them is sitting in public playing his music free of charge and everyone around has the right to listen for free. The other is playing in a private studio and making a recording of it, then distributing that recording in exchange for money.

Now you have the right to listen to that recording for free if someone chooses to sit in public and play their licensed copy on a boombox for all to hear, but you don't have a right to your own copy which you can play at your convenience.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

[Musicians] specify a format in which you are supposed to receive them whereby you pay for CDs. On the other hand, people can't help but see your snowman

Now you're changing the subject. How about you just answer the question: if someone performs certain work because he expects that it'll bring in money, is he or is he not automatically entitled to get paid for it?

It shouldn't be hard to answer. Just a couple posts ago, you were shouting in all caps about this very subject. You seemed to think then that expectations create entitlement; have you changed your mind?

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[berj]

No, I don't; you might be making it harder for them to sell newspapers, but you aren't really taking anything away from them. I don't think they should be able to stifle your free speech (i.e. prevent you from sharing the data on those CDs) just because your ability to speak makes it harder for them to sell papers.

I couldn't disagree more. I simply can't see how this is a free speech issue. You're trying to get something for nothing. You've done no work to have the right to the content. It's tantamount to plaigiarism (sp?). At least when the newspaper prints wire-service articles it actually *pays* for them (or has some sort of agreement to that end).

To what end does your reasoning take us? Can I take (no.. not steal) someone's content and put *my* name on it? Can I take the content.. change it subtly and keep *their* name on it? After all the creator has no rights here.. it's just a free speech issue.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

Now you have the right to listen to that recording for free if someone chooses to sit in public and play their licensed copy on a boombox for all to hear, but you don't have a right to your own copy which you can play at your convenience.

Copies don't just appear out of nowhere, so it doesn't really make sense to talk about "a right to your own copy" without mentioning how it was obtained. I don't have the right to force the musician to give me a copy of his recording, obviously.

I do, however, have the right to accept a copy from anyone who's willing to give it to me. Whatever medium I use to record it is just an extension of my own memory, and I have every right to use tools to help me remember things I can't remember on my own, such as the sequence of several million bytes that makes up an MP3 file.

Similarly, I have the right to give a copy to anybody who wants one. I have the right to describe any of my experiences to people who are interested, in as much detail as I want, even if those experiences include listening to music and the details include a mathematical description of the sound waves that I heard.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Sinbios]

I have explained the difference. Consumers must be offered a choice in whether they are WILLING to pay for it. You cannot perform a certain work in public (building a snowman) and demand everyone that passes by pay for it. However, if you make a shack and stick the snowman inside, you can certain charge people to see it. Most probably won't.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[berj]

The trouble is that a CD or recorded work isn't a public performance. The work has been laid down to a medium that is for sale.. intended to be sold. It's not like you can just hear it anywhere. You've actively got to go out and get it.

If I want to listen to a band's concert from outside the stadium then noone can stop me. But if I record it and start distributing it that's when I've got a problem. Though I *do* appreciate bands who give permission to record and trade their live concerts (eg the Dave Matthews Band) and I patronize their work accordingly.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

I couldn't disagree more. I simply can't see how this is a free speech issue. You're trying to get something for nothing.

It's a free speech issue from the perspective of the speaker, i.e. the person distributing copies. If you want to prevent him from sharing copies of that newspaper, then you also have to prevent him from reading it out loud. That's undeniably speech. Of course, there are reasons for which it's reasonable to limit speech, but "making it easier for some people to make money" isn't one of them.

To what end does your reasoning take us? Can I take (no.. not steal) someone's content and put *my* name on it? Can I take the content.. change it subtly and keep *their* name on it? After all the creator has no rights here.. it's just a free speech issue.

Both of those scenarios involve fraud. The author has no right to prevent you from sharing that content, but the public does have the right not to be deceived. If you put your name on something that you didn't write, or if you put someone else's name on something they didn't write, you're deceiving everyone who reads it.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

You cannot perform a certain work in public (building a snowman) and demand everyone that passes by pay for it.

So where does that leave musicians whose work is sent out over the air several times a day?

However, if you make a shack and stick the snowman inside, you can certain charge people to see it.

Well, you can charge for entrance to your shack, but that's it. You can't stop them from building an identical snowman in their own front yard and letting everyone see it for free.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Sinbios]

That leaves the musicians with the rest of the songs that are not broadcasted, and available only on their CDs. And sure, your snowman argument works... musicians can charge you for their CD, but can't stop you from performing your own music on the street and letting everyone hear it for free.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

The work has been laid down to a medium that is for sale.. intended to be sold. It's not like you can just hear it anywhere. You've actively got to go out and get it.

Not if you have a friend who bought a copy and is willing to share.

If I want to listen to a band's concert from outside the stadium then noone can stop me. But if I record it and start distributing it that's when I've got a problem.

If you get to listen to it, just because you're in the right place at the right time, then why can't anyone else? Maybe I'd like to go stand on the sidewalk outside the stadium, but I have to work that day and my schedule won't allow it. Shouldn't I be able to ask you to stand there, as my agent, and record it for me?

If your answer is no, then you're essentially arguing against the right to timeshift. That is, if listening to a concert from the sidewalk is a right reserved for those people who can manage to be there at the right time, then who's to say watching TV and listening to the radio shouldn't work the same way - i.e., if you can't be home at 3:00 tomorrow to watch some show, that's just too bad and you have no choice but to wait for the DVD?

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Mr2001]

I guess you missed the word "identical". Musicians can charge me for their CD, but just as I have no right to stop you from building a snowman that looks exactly like mine, flake for flake, musicians have no right to stop me from playing a song that sounds exactly like theirs, bit for bit.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[theLOUDroom]

'socialist entitlement mentality' bit doesn't refer to the music industry

Actually, you could say that it does. These guys are being given a gov't-granted perpetual revenue stream. The gov't *could* make similar laws for plumbers, carpenters and bus drivers, etc. If they did it for everyone, you'd have total socialism.

Anyway, I think the ubiquity of popular music coupled with the absurdly minimal costs of data copying today is what has lead people to feel entitled to music,

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that many of these artists we're "supporting" are actually dead? And that even if they're alive they very likely aren't receiving money?

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[cpt kangarooski]

I hope you get burglerized tonight. Since a thief could obviously think that why buy a stereo system when I can just jack this guys house... You are scary indeed.

Certainly a thief could think that. But then, the entire notion of property (beyond what you can personally maintain control of in a 'might makes right' sort of way) is artificial too. It's backed up by the idea of mutual respect for property (i.e. it behooves you to respect others' property in order to avoid having widespread disrespect for property that could work against you if others followed your lead) and organized systems to defend it (e.g. a police force, courts, prisons, etc. which follow certain rules with regard to property rights). So a would-be thief has to decide which is more in his interests: stealing or not. Generally the system is weighed to discourage the former and encourage the latter.

But none of this makes property rights generally any sort of an inherent right, just as copyrights are not an inherent right. It's all artificial. And it's all well and good, so long as it generally serves the public good. Of course, even in the world of real property, what ultimately serves the public good, and what is the law, may conflict with what uneducated sorts such as yourself, apparently, think about how things work. For example, if I had a plot of land, and someone came along and tried to take it from me, then the law will support that person under the right circumstances, the police will escort me off of what I might still think of as my own land, etc.

Honestly, how you can misread my posts all the time is beyond me. I've never said I was against the idea of copyright, or against particular implementations of it. I'm just debunking the silly idea that authors are naturally entitled to copyrights or naturally have copyrights. The truth is that they only get copyrights at all when it serves the public interest to give them copyrights, and this will not always be the case, either for copyrights generally or a specific degree of copyright compared with another.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't even try the record label excuse because it actually does help a band out financially if you buy the CD since it helps them get out of debt.

What a crock. Do you know anything at all about recording contracts? They're arranged so that, after an inital advance, the band has little chance of ever getting another cent. Their accounting is such that the band's debt is overwhelming to the point that the band cannot ever cover the "expenses" laid against their advance. Unless it's a hugely successful band.

These **AA member assholes make Mafia loan sharks look like schoolmarms.

One fairly well-known singer actually went up against his label. His first problem was discovery. He had to sue them numerous times to get various bits of information out of them. In the end, after he was able to prove how much he'd been fucked out of over ten otr fifteen years, the Bastards got the judge to impose a "settlement" which amounted to about 50% of what he was owed, not to include interest on even that much.If these shits could be made to cough up all their ill-gotten gains, we could cure every pedophile in America and even those in England.

For the love of God, will no one think of the children?!?!?!

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[ddddan]

Perhaps what he is referring to (just a guess) is the content of the songs themselves. It's one thing to sell a song which says "screw the man" (be it respect for authority or traditional values) but quite another to be the man being screwed.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest

[Jtheletter]

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that many of these artists we're "supporting" are actually dead? And that even if they're alive they very likely aren't receiving money?

I totally agree, that's also a big part of it. There are so many absurdities and abuses in the current music industry it's a herculean effort to name them all. I certainly wasn't suggesting that my viewpoint was the only issue, but one I feel has strong influence on the topic.

As a software enigineer especially, I see many parallels with what I do as compared to what musicians with RIAA contracts do. I don't get payed for every machine my code is put on, or for every time the program is run, that's not part of my contract, but it's also not part of ANY individual programmer's contract that I've ever heard of. It's hard then for me to sympathize when Johnny Rockstar gets $Y contracted and also $X for every time his song is played, and is complaining that after 50 years he stops getting that money. Granted, most of the money goes to the RIAA, we can make parallels with per-processor licensing, etc, etc... But there's still a big divide between Johhny's pay-per-play and my contracted one-time payment models. Is my software necessarily worth that kind of return? Possibly, that's up to the market to decide. But it's more easy to say that e.g. an MRI software engineer - whose software is daily responsible for helping diagnose illness and ultimately save lives - probably deserves continuous compensation more than a musician who sings about hanging with his buddies in a club. When you make a comparison like that the copyright protection and compensation mechanisms currently at work make even less sense.

stealing is stealing ... but

[tomstdenis]

copyright infringement is copyright infringement, not stealing. Just like murder isn't stealing, neither is fraud, or tax evasion. I'm sure libel isn't stealing, presenting false documentation, contempt of court, etc....

It's really hard to get all morally upright over copyright infringement when you know the crack dealing executives aren't actually sharing the profits with the artists who are the ones putting their talent and originality on the line in the first place.

Oh... that's why they call it stealing...

Tom

Re:stealing is stealing ... but

[Tankko]

It's really hard to get all morally upright over copyright infringement when you know the crack dealing executives aren't actually sharing the profits with the artists

Then why is Britney Spears worth over $120M?

Re:stealing is stealing ... but

[IgLou]

Silly Rabbit, that's because Marketing is Marketing (and highly effective no the herds of mindless sheep that buy into that stuff).

Re:stealing is stealing ... but

[tomstdenis]

And for every britney spears...her labels have also payola sold millions of albums.

But that money came from other artists who got swooped up in low royalty agreements with high non-refundable NRE fees.

Tom

Re:stealing is stealing ... but

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why is Britney Spears worth over $120M?

You'd have to be REALLY desperate to pay $120M for Britney Spears. Maybe $1,000 just for the novelty value but definitely no more than that.

Re:stealing is stealing ... but

[Anonymous Coward]

> copyright infringement is copyright infringement, not stealing.

To be guilty of copyright infringement, the children would have to redistribute. More alarming is the utter irresponsibilty of calling a download theft unless the aim to to teach people to steal. Logically, if duplicating a media file is stealing then perhaps stealing isn't so bad?

It would be unfortunate if this "stealing" incident had a profound psychological effect and turned one of his kids into a kleptomaniac.

Aren't the Bronfmans Canadian?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bronfman family is one of the most prominant Canadian "old-money" families around...
Did the kids "do the deed" in Canada? If so, then it is likely allowed under the personal copying exemptions in the fair dealing provisions of the Canada Copyright Act.
And saying it is Stealing is just not true.

TDz.

Re:Aren't the Bronfmans Canadian?

[fisherdude]

Originally Russian, immigrated to Canada, made loads of money running whiskey accross the border during prohibition and then fought amoungst themselves. Bought themselves semi-legitimacy by owning Seagrams Distillaries. Not many years ago old Sam was classified as one of the richest men in the world (before Gates).

Lawsuits Morally Justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't extend the moral principle that permits you to sue people for stealing music to everyone, including your own children, then it isn't a moral principle since it can't be applied generally. In other words, you shouldn't be suing strangers (or their parents) if you can't bring yourself to do the same. This is just basic moral theory.

Please pleas

[severdia]

Please don't sue me, Warner... I prrrrrrrrrrromise I won't do it anymore! Good for the goose, good for the gander. Why doesn't the Attorney General seize this opportunity???? :)

I was in his son's class.

[Anonymous Coward]

His son tried propositioning our teacher, and she didn't oblige. Then he "obliged" her on his son.

Yes, they are.

[KingSkippus]

suing the people that are the suppliers for the downloaders

Do you have any idea at all how peer-to-peer networks work? Every downloader is an uploader as well.

There's nothing clever, fiendishly or otherwise, about their plan. It's really stupidly simple: sue enough people so that word gets around that if you download music, you'll be sued. Then people will (theoretically) stop downloading music.

The problem with their stupidly simple plan is that it's not working. Why? Among other reasons:

• Most of the people downloading music illegally don't care if other people are getting sued. They'll only stop of they get caught, they get sued, and they are forced to stop.
• The industry is, in a lot of cases, going after the wrong people, and pursuing it relentlessly even after it's been demonstrating they're the wrong people. Now, there's a bit of the attitude going around that, if you're going to be sued anyway whether you're doing the right thing or the wrong thing, you might as well err on the side of having free music.
• The industry is punishing people who have absolutely nothing to do with trying to download music illegally. Witness Sony's rootkit fiasco, DRM that keeps us from listening to our music on devices that they don't approve of, attempts (that are successful in other places, *ahem* Canada...) to tax media that may (but probably not) be used for illegal purposes, collect royalties on devices such as the Zune and iPod that may (but probably not) be used to listen to ill-gotten music, etc.

I'm sorry, but "clever" is not an adjective that I would apply to any company associated with the **AA. Fiendish? Yeah, I can live with that one.

Re:Yes, they are.

[SuperMog2002]

Do you have any idea at all how peer-to-peer networks work? Every downloader is an uploader as well.

That's not true. If your P2P network allows you to download to a folder that you aren't sharing, then you can download files without sharing any. Just don't set any folders are shared, or if your P2P network requires you to have a shared folder, leave it empty. This practice is often frowned upon, and may result in your getting lower priority on downloads, but it's certainly possible to download without uploading.

Re:Yes, they are.

[LanMan04]

Do you have any idea at all how peer-to-peer networks work? Every downloader is an uploader as well. BZZZ!! Wrong, thanks for playing.

This is only true for "Bittorrent-esque" protocols that require the downloader to upload pieces of his partially downloaded file to other downloaders, in order to continue getting subsequent pieces of the download.

Other P2P network protocols don't require this at all. Fire up Limewire, set your shared directory to nothing (or an empty folder), and start downloading files. It works! Of course, many client programs for uploading-not-required protocols have a "don't upload to leechers" toggle switch, which when enabled simply checks a potential downloader's number of shared files. If that number is 0, then the client won't upload to them. But since not everyone has this checked, you can download without uploading.

This is defeatable by sharing some non-infringing files (but you'd still technically be uploading *something*), or coding a a rogue client that reports files for sharing that don't actually exist.

The whole point is that with Bittorent-style protocols, you have to share pieces of the *SAME FILE* you're in the process of downloading (which is likely to be a 'naughty' file). With other P2P programs, you can download without uplaoding at all, or download while uploading entirely different files to entirely different users (who you may or may not be downloading from).

Re:Yes, they are.

[KingSkippus]

may result in your getting lower priority on downloads

many client programs for uploading-not-required protocols have a "don't upload to leechers" toggle switch, which when enabled simply checks a potential downloader's number of shared files. If that number is 0, then the client won't upload to them

Fine, then I'll change it:

Do you have any idea at all how peer-to-peer networks work? For all practical purposes, every downloader is an uploader as well.

Peer-to-peer networks with few uploaders suck. People don't use them. They fail miserably, and people go back to using the ones where everyone shares again.

Your original comment made it sound like the **AA is chasing down just a few rogue pirates who are the big-time offenders. That's not the case at all. They're chasing down anyone and everyone; downloaders, uploaders, average schmoes, parents, 14-year-old kids, dead people, employers, people who have never owned computers,...

So... Since this guy is a billionare......

[8127972]

.... That means that the RIAA can sue him for millions. After all, they go after retired people and single mothers on fixed incomes for thousands of dollars. Right?

Re:So... Since this guy is a billionare......

[FusionDragon2099]

No... they can sue him for trillions! Mwahahahahahaha!

Please stop ripping Wired.

[thedarb]

I come here to feed my need for new tech news. The same reason I read Wired. It's a little annoying when Slashdot has little news, like on weekends, the hunger for tech news growls. But when I've already read some tech news on Wired, and then find Slashdot pointing to the story a day or two later instead of giving me something new to feed on, it's even more disappointing. I get this, "Ooh! New news!" rush for a second, only to find, no... It's not new news. Slashdot is just pointing to that already old Wired story, again!

I rely on slashdot to point me to the news I won't find otherwise, not for it to spoon feed me the stuff I already found days ago on Wired. I would hazard a guess that most folks that read /. already check wired on their own. Give me something good to eat.

So...

[Zebra_X]

Is it possible to start a lawsuit on behalf of another organization? I mean we could all pitch in to sue him and his children!

Whooo!

Re:So...

[Slashdot Parent]

Is it possible to start a lawsuit on behalf of another organization?

Of course it is possible. It's called "agency", and it is what allows an attorney to represent you in court. Of course, in order to act as an entity's agent, you must be a licensed to act in that capacity (as lawyers, real estate agents, etc. are), and you must have permission from that entity to be its agent.

So, as a practical matter, can you, Zebra_X, an unlicensed layperson file a lawsuit against Edgar Bronfman, on behalf of the RIAA without its permission? The answer, of course, is "absolutely not, but I'd pay money to see the expression on the judge's face when you try. It would also be amusing to watch you be prosecuted for violating licensure and agency law."

Understandable

[A beautiful mind]

The kids have suffered enough already being their dad the devil himself.

Before lawsuits can be pressed...

[Tarlus]

...how old are his kids? That's kinda useful to know when discussing whether or not to involve legal action.

Re:Before lawsuits can be pressed...

[Synic]

Didn't the RIAA sue a 14 year old girl? I don't think they give a shit about age, it's obviously that they're a RIAA member company CEO's kids that counts.

Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing

[openright]

Downloading is advertising, not stealing.

If I download a song from a questionable site, what happens?

1. I get non-DRM music.
2. I add to the popularity of the music.
3. If I would otherwise have paid $1 for the music, of which the artist would have got 2 cents, then I shorted the artist by 2 cents. And I denied 98 cents profit to a information exploiting company.
4. If I would not have otherwise paid for it (because I am poor, or because it is only available as DRM), then then I have shorted no-one, thought If I did not download it, the song would not gain in popularity.
5. If the artist is dead, then It is not possible to short the artist, only possible to short those that wish to make a living from the work of the dead.
6. If the artist wrote it 30 years ago and already made millions from it, then there is no moral reason to continue penny payments to the artists, or dollar payments to the company exploiting old works.

Re:Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing

[Microsift]

I disagree with most of your arguments...

1. If you didn't buy it and it wasn't legitimately given to you, you stole it
2. I'm not sure what the impact of you listening to a song is on its sales.
3. Artists do put their time into an album, and record companies put time and money in to an album, both deserve compensation.
4. If you steal caviar that you can't afford, or wouldn't otherwise buy, you're still stealing. See #2
5. I guess I agree with you, though I think the artist's heirs are entitled to compensation.
6. I want artists to have an incentive to write music that lasts, I can still listen to Abbey Road, but I don't see anyone listening to some of the crap on the radio today in ten years. However, I agree that copyrights do last too long, especially when the holder is a corporation.

Re:Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

3. If I would otherwise have paid $1 for the music, of which the artist would have got 2 cents, then I shorted the artist by 2 cents. And I denied 98 cents profit to a information exploiting company.

Or if you're not in the Slashdot Spin Zone, the other expenses and people working for the record company who are not members of the band, including recording engineers, janitors, rent, capital expenditures, ...

5. If the artist is dead, then It is not possible to short the artist, only possible to short those that wish to make a living from the work of the dead.

Or those with whom the artist made a legal agreement during his/her lifetime. I intend to state in my will that I want my family to inherit the rights to my work, and receive any royalties I would have earned.

4. If I would not have otherwise paid for it (because I am poor, or because it is only available as DRM), then then I have shorted no-one, thought If I did not download it, the song would not gain in popularity.

And these dead artists you speak of, they care about gaining in popularity?

6. If the artist wrote it 30 years ago and already made millions from it, then there is no moral reason to continue penny payments to the artists, or dollar payments to the company exploiting old works.

Why not? Must a moral person say that legal contracts expire after 30 years or 3 million dollars, whichever came first?

Re:Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing

[openright]

5
> Or those with whom the artist made a legal agreement during his/her lifetime. I intend to state in my will that I want my family to inherit the rights to my work, and receive any royalties I would have earned.
6
> Why not? Must a moral person say that legal contracts expire after 30 years or 3 million dollars, whichever came first?

It's not a "legal contract". A copyright is a temporary publishing monopoly, granted by the government to encourage invention/art.

The question is what should that limit be in order to maintain a balance of providing an incentive while encouraging innovation, both for independent works and derived works.

Should the limit be 30 years?
Should the limit be 95 years?
Should the limit be 200 years?
Should the limit be 1000 years?

Would you like it if:
  royalties of any copies of Mono Lisa go the the heirs of Leonardo da Vinci.
  royalties from Beethoven go to heirs of that family.
  royalties from any use of all printed fonts go to the printer that invented it 400 years ago. ...

Hopefully you would agree that without limits, you end up with a class system with wealth based on information inheritance. (Actually, it would be a little different.The artists or the family often sell out to big companies, and the class system would be based on what your families corporate ties are).

I would argue that we see the ill effects of this even now with a 95-120 year copyright.

I picked 30 years, even though Thomas Jefferson's 14 years would probably work even today. 50 years would be a step in the right direction too.

Re:Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing

[StringBlade]

I vehemently disagree with your #5 as I do with any sort of monetary inheritance. It provides no incentive for the heir receiving the inheritance to do anything productive with their life except to live off their relatives' work. This has zero benefit to society and should not be encouraged because then people will come to believe that it is their right to receive a large inheritance and not have to earn their own way.

But then again, that's the beauty of freedom, we can both have our opinions and provide for our own heirs as we see fit in the hopes that we've both produced productive members of society who value a work ethic. Some of the worst kings in history succeeded the best most likely because they grew up without having to learn much about the hardships of life and felt entitled to everything they had (and more).

Re:Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing

[openright]

> 1. If you didn't buy it and it wasn't legitimately given to you, you stole it
> 2. I'm not sure what the impact of you listening to a song is on its sales.

In order to "steal" one, would have to take something of value.

The copy of the digital song download itself has no value, as copies are freely made.

What has possible value is the lost revenue that person downloading would have paid.

If a million people in china find out that they can download your song for free, and they do,
how much money have you lost.
Well, you could look at how many of those people would have paid for it when they did not find it for free.
Say 1000 of those million would have paid $1 for it, if they could not get it for free.
So on average, each of the million people cost you 1 tenth of a sale, or 10 cents.

Note that now a million people in china heard your song, and if the work is good, the accidental publicity may cause future sales.

Arguing that those million people all "stole" a song from you and cost you 1 million dollars in sales is not realistic.

4. If you steal caviar that you can't afford, or wouldn't otherwise buy, you're still stealing. See #2

Agreed, but if I take a picture of the caviar, (ignoring the sign says no pictures without paying $1 royalty), does the owner of the caviar claim losses due to theft of copies (from those who could not afford to pay)?

(My attempt at a reasonable Caviar-Information comparison.)

Re:Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing

[Grishnakh]

3. If I would otherwise have paid $1 for the music, of which the artist would have got 2 cents, then I shorted the artist by 2 cents. And I denied 98 cents profit to a information exploiting company.

Or if you're not in the Slashdot Spin Zone, the other expenses and people working for the record company who are not members of the band, including recording engineers, janitors, rent, capital expenditures, ...

Wrong. These expenses are already paid by the artist from the record label's extortionate loan to them (called an "advance"). Basically, all the costs of producing an album are eventually paid by the artist out of their sales. The 98 cents profit is just that: profit for the record labels.

Re:Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing

[Tweekster]

I personally dont care about what legal agreement you made with your family for the rights to your music.

I will never feel like I am doing wrong when I download a dead artists music. That person's heirs are doing just fine, or they squandered the REAL money they were left. tough shit for them.

Copyright is meant to give incentive to the creator, not the family, to hell with them, they did not make the work, they deserve zero compensation (except in the form of inherentance of money the real creator left them)

Re:Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing

[Microsift]

Society benefits from copyright extending past the life of the creator of the work. If I were an author in my late seventies, what would be the monetary motivation for writing a book. One need only attend the funerals of a few close friends before one realizes that one's life on earth is near its end. Knowing that my work would financially benefit my children would be a good incentive for me to spend my golden years working on my craft. Obviously money is not the primary reason that artists create, but it is one of the reasons (a minor one in most cases).

Re:Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

A 70 year old author who knew that his copyright would last 25 years would have plenty of financial incentive. I don't think anyone is suggesting a copyright should end at the author's death. But it should have a reasonable span, not an unreasonable one, so that the copyright can fulfill the second half of a copyright's mission, which is to return the work of art to the garden from which it sprang: humanity.

Yes...let us ignore injustice.

[FatSean]

Injustice breeds contempt for the law.

well..it's not like people have much respect for Copyright law anyway.

Regular people reading this story will probably be more likely to infringe, just out of spite.

Imagine if 1/4 of the adults in the USA traded copywritten music.

Re:Yes...let us ignore injustice.

[heinousjay]

Imagine if 1/4 of the adults in the USA traded copywritten music.

You really think it'll collapse to that few?

-1 Flamebait

[bidule]

Wow, nice editorial! But please, wipe yourselves. You are frothing at the mouth.

Even if your job description is "being a soulless bastard bent on world domination", it doesn't mean you have to bring your job home. If you believe lawyers, carpenters, programmers and loafers should behave differently toward their children, you aren't fit to be a parent yet.

Reading most of the early comments, I am under the impression all /.ers still live in their parent basement. Get a life, go out and walk a few mile in your own shoes, pay a visit to Mr. Sun. When there's enough oxygen up there to keep your little hamster running, maybe you'll see thing differently.

Why I'not surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

The Broffman familly made they fortune selling illegal stuff!

Wow

[MutantEnemy]

"stealing music is stealing music"
"right is right"
"wrong is wrong"

This guy's just overflowing with profound truths.

Re:Wow

[CopaceticOpus]

Well, profound truth is profound truth, after all.

Isn't copyright infringment criminal...?

[TheRealStyro]

Interesting. I thought the US just made copyright infringement a criminal action punishable by law. If that is the case and the actions occurred in the US then the FBI and/or local law enforcement must investigate this alleged criminal action. If the FBI and/or local law enforcement chooses not to investigate this allegation of a criminal action then the FBI and/or all local law enforcement cannot investigate any copyright 'crimes' (in particular those being reported to the FBI and/or law enforcement). Fairness under law or no law - enforce the law fairly or not at all.

Re:Isn't copyright infringment criminal...?

[Daemonstar]

If that is the case and the actions occurred in the US then the FBI and/or local law enforcement must investigate this alleged criminal action. If the FBI and/or local law enforcement chooses not to investigate this allegation of a criminal action then the FBI and/or all local law enforcement cannot investigate any copyright 'crimes' (in particular those being reported to the FBI and/or law enforcement). Fairness under law or no law - enforce the law fairly or not at all.

Not exactly (AFAIK, it is not criminal, anyway). Even if it was, ultimately it's not up to law enforcement, but to the District Attorney (not entirely sure how this works on a Federal level) or Munincipal Judge (depending in the offense). Local law enforcement can investigate all it wants to on a particular crime, but if the DA refuses to prosecute, then there's nothing you, me, or law enforcement can do. This is also why some crimes are not investegated to the extent of others. If law enforcement knows what a DA will or won't accept (read: probable cause, evidence), then some incedents are just left at reports. Also, depending on the crime, law enforcement may have between 2 years and the end-of-time to investigate, so there's no hurry.

This is, however, totally different than civil law.

Enforcing the law fairly is a nice thought, but you have to remember that DA's are elected, and, depending on their character, will do what they will to keep their office. Some towns are highly political (like the town I live in), so reason isn't always a determing factor in the cases they choose to prosecute.

On the other hand, it depends on the crime. You can technically be stopped for speeding for 1 MPH over the speed limit; unless there is some urgent and compelling reason for law enforcement to stop you, they more-then-likely won't. The city police usually don't stop anyone unless they are 10+ MPH over, but the drug enforcement officer sometimes gets in a mood to stop people 4-6 MPH over. He's made a lot of DWI arrests that way. Another officer tried to stop a vehicle for the tag light being out; after running, crashing his vehicle, and being arrested, they found out he had felony warrants for kidnapping his daughter.

Stopping you for a tag light out may not be fair to you, but this one saved a little girl.

Re:Isn't copyright infringment criminal...?

[MooseTick]

"If the FBI and/or local law enforcement chooses not to investigate this allegation of a criminal action then the FBI and/or all local law enforcement cannot investigate any copyright 'crimes' (in particular those being reported to the FBI and/or law enforcement). Fairness under law or no law - enforce the law fairly or not at all."

With that logic, if the cops don't/won't catch everybody speeding, then they can't penalize me for speeding since its not fair that I would be singled out.

Yes, They Have

[waldoj]

I know some of his family members. Not his children, but his his sibling and two of his nieces. One of them, in fact, has downloaded music illegally on my own computer. :)

Re:Yes, They Have

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I do not doubt the authenticity of your claims, I must add that um, yeah, I know that dude's kids personally too, and they like came over and downloaded like 6 Gig worth of pirated music...and told me to hang on to them until they can transfer it off to their own machines. So um, officer, those mp3s aren't mine.

Re:Yes, They Have

[naapo]

Look out! It's a trap!

Be just like him

[Private.Tucker]

What if I give my kids (if I had any) a stern talking to? Does that save me from paying millions of dollars?

Fair Enough

[CheeseburgerBrown]

I suppose anything else really is contributing to a further muddying of the waters. To use the paradigm of idiotsticks from the article: FUD is FUD.


PostScript: As an intelligent Slashdot reader I'd furthermore like to say, once and for all, that there were SEVENTY-NINE episodes of the original Star Trek series.

All men...

[Pojut]

are created equal. Unless you are black, hispanic, jewish, catholic, asian, short, fat, female, poor, or are NOT a CEO's child.

Re:All men...

[Anonymous Coward]

are created equal. Unless you are black, hispanic, jewish, catholic, asian, short, fat, female, poor, or are NOT a CEO's child.

Hmm, here let me fix that for you:

are doughnuts. Unless you are not a doughnut. Then I think the pancake ate the cookie which may or may NOT be a child's CEO.

There, I bet you feel better now with those correct corrections! No need to thank me, your gratitude is understood! Have a wonderful day! :-)

Re:All men...

[Pojut]

Whomever this AC is, I would like to give a big thumbs up to you (but my coworker would like me to give you a big FU)

My coworker that was at my desk when I read that is currently covered in coffee that had been sprayed from my failed attempt at drinking, reading, and laughing at the same time.

Morality?

[jeffasselin]

"Frankly, right is right and wrong is wrong, particularly when a parent is talking to a child."

Edgar Bronfman, spreading moral absolutism since 1955?

umm...

[jonpry_oneword]

everyone can say "I don't do that anymore" after the statute of limitations runs out.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

They Just Don't Get It

[Luscious868]

Copyright infringement is not stealing. They are two completely different and unequal things and nobody is fooled despite the RIAA and MPAA's best efforts. Newsflash you idiots, if you would have had foresight enough to begin distributing music digitally with no DRM and the appropriate pricing in place this never would have blown up in your face as it now has. $0.99 cents a track, $9.99 for an album with no DRM and you'd have had yourselves a huge winner. The MPAA better learn from the RIAA's mistakes. Offer $9.99 standard definition digital downloads of movies with no extra's that can be burned to a DVD an unlimited number of times and you'll have yourselves a winner. Offer DVD's for customers that want the extra's and HD-DVD's and/or Blue-Ray Discs for customers that want HD.

Most people I know don't see much of a difference between using a P2P program to get a track which is how to get free music in the digital age and the method we used when we were younger, using a blank tape to record the good songs when they came on the radio. It's essentially the same thing, just quicker and more convenient.

I purchase new tracks on iTunes now because it's cheap, quick and easy but I can understand why many people avoid it due to DRM and the iPod lock in. If the RIAA would pull their heads out of their collective asses and offer music at a fair price with no DRM they'd have a huge winner on their hands. The music industry needs to recognize they can't sue their way out of this one and alienating you customers is a sure fire way to go out of business. Wise up and give the consumer what they want. Affordable music with no DRM that will work on any device they might choose to listen to it on. Would there still be piracy? Yes, but it wouldn't be anywhere near the level that it is at now. It would be prevalent among high school and college kids, but all one has to do is look at the alcohol industry to see how it's possible to get kids who are used to getting something for free when they are young to pony up for it when they are older and can afford to buy it.

What does this say about Warner's Music

[Microsift]

I assume these kids can get all of the Time-Warner catalog for free anyway, so what are they stealing? I guess those Time-Life music collections aren't as comprehensive as advertised.

Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman should be FIRED

[erroneus]

I have heard time and time again that "by law, corporations are supposed to have the stockholder's interest first and that profit is the primary drive." He should be suing his children until they bleed in order to serve the shareholder's interests. The shareholders don't care about his children... only the profits.

No, I don't actually expect the Warner Music CEO to sue his children and I think a "good talking to" is good enough. But I also think it should be enough for EVERYONE. I think that everyone who has been, is currently or who might be sued by the RIAA should send him and the Warner Music board membership letters to that effect. If they believe the RIAA's activities are justifiable and correct, then Bronfman's is not. If they believe Bronfman's response is correct, then the RIAA's is not.

This Must Be Nearly A Record

[Petersko]

"I suppose you'd have fit right in in Germany circa WWII."

It's subtle, but I think we might have a new record for the speed of execution of Godwin's Law. From a topic on Warner Brothers and the RIAA to Nazi's in 2 easy steps.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[bohemian72]

I'm not convinced he was speaking of Nazis. Mainly those people who were merely complacent while the Nazis took took more and more control. It could be just the loophole the GP needs to avoid Godwin's Law.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[halivar]

If there's two things I can't stand together in a discussion, it's the RIAA, and Nazi's. But I repeat myself.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[The Warlock]

Are you kidding? There's been at least one occurrence of Godwin's law taking effect in the first post here. No way this guy is setting a record.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[WilliamSChips]

Imagine you didn't know grammar. Also imagine that you poorly copied a Mark Twain quote using possessives as plurals. But I repeat myself.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[Firehed]

What's the difference?

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[halivar]

No one summoned the Grammar Nazi's; I was joking (we still do that around here, right?) about the RIAA. You can go away, now.

But before you go, I want to mention that the proper way to pluralize a proper noun is with an apostrophe. If you're going to be a Grammar Nazi, at least know what the hell you're talking about. Thanks.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[dctoastman]

"there's"
That should have been "there are", especially since it was in reference to multiple entities.

Not to mention that you seem to be wrong about your proper noun pluralization as well.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[WilliamSChips]

I want to mention that the proper way to pluralize a proper noun is with an apostrophe.

No it isn't. The apostrophe is never used to pluralize something. It's occasionally used for acronyms but that's an exception. "Nazi's" is a possessive only. Whatever teacher told you that is dead wrong.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[Slithe]

Do not begin a sentence with a conjunction!

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[WilliamSChips]

I'd tell you to tell that to Mark Twain but he's six feet under. He might be cremated though.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[Kreigaffe]

It takes two steps to go from the RIAA to the Nazis?

Last I checked I thought they were just one Krystalnacht away from the Teutonic Two-step

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[halivar]

I thought about looking it up, until I realized I don't freakin' care. I'll concede the point, and admit that you are both correct and a pompous ass.

My original post was for the purpose of humor, not intellectual masturbation.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[Anonymous Coward]

It's subtle, but I think we might have a new record for the speed of execution of Godwin's Law. From a topic on Warner Brothers and the RIAA to Nazi's in 2 easy steps.

Oh for fuck's sake. You win the slash-fucking-tard PAVLOV award for the first repeat of a tired and nauseatingly overused (and not-even-funny) joke, right on cue.

Congratulations on being today's slashtard!

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[Big Nothing]

I'm pretty sure I can do it in one step.

Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record

[gfreeman]

2 steps?

Keep going with that thought

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>they owe the band a good faith effort to pay for the music

It's good for them to know that this is better done by buying a T-shirt than by buying a CD. It won't meet their legal obligations under today's US law but it does meet the ethical standard of paying the people who make things you use.

Not a money thing

[SomeOtherGuy]

I guess stealing music must be a cultural activity and not
money driven. I mean if anybody had the means (money or otherwise) to
legally obtain tunez, you would think it would be his kids.

This makes about as much sense as Bill Gates' kids pirating copies of Word or Excel.

Re:Not a money thing

[geekoid]

Friends don't let friend pirate....Word or excel.

It's not the children.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Point is that he admits they are guilty, but he gave them a stern talking-to, instead of suing their little asses off.

Hypocritical fuck deserves a few years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. I honestly don't know what else would solve this problem, other than perhaps a tactical nuke.

Restitution, not just a talking-to

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

If he actually believes that the kids "stole" music he should make them put it back so the record label won't have to pay to replace it.

That's what you do if your kids steal something. It doesn't make sense in this case? Damn straight. Teach the kids it's like trespass, and they won't grow up thinking that you talk nonsense when you try to teach them ethics.

I'm confused...

[Digital Vomit]

I'm confused: did the kids steal some music CDs or just download some mp3s?

Full Concequences?

[emil10001]

From the summary:

Bronfman insists that, after a stern talking-to, his children have suffered the full consequences of their actions.

I'm confused, the full consequences? So either his kids are all out hundreds of thousands of dollars, or now all you get for copyright infringement is a "stern talking-to."

It's worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's far, far worse than simple hypocrisy. He's gone beyond just trying to cop out and is actively using this opportunity to push the idea that downloading music is theft.

Think about it: Warner CEO says downloading music is theft. People just go "Yeah, of course he thinks so." It's so much more convincing (for the general public, not us) when he admits his kids did it and "yeah, it was stealing and it is wrong." Suddenly people accept it as fact that copyright infringement is stealing and start to think, "If his kids are stealing music, what are mine doing?"

Re:It's worse...

[StringBlade]

Suddenly people accept it as fact that copyright infringement is stealing and start to think, "If his kids are stealing music, what are mine doing?"

Playing outside and using their imagination instead of listening to crappy music inside?

I know you're being rhetorical but if parents are gauging their kids on the actions of children of wealthy elites then they are clearly out of touch with their own children and should spend some time getting to know them better. It's called good parenting.

stealing? moral responsibility?

[eyeb1]

hypocrisy .. double standard .. nothing new ..

what is important are his beliefs and claims ..

that downloading or uploading for that matter .. of a digital file that is a copy of a commpressed and converted music tack .. that is not an original sound recording on a physical medium and has been offer freely .. and that are repeatedly broadcast over public airwaves to be freely recieved .. is an act of theft .. the equivalent of taking a CD from a retail music store ..

and that there is some moral issue involved in stealing .. theft is not a moral issue .. it is a legal issue at best ..

actually it may have been perfectly legal

[jbr439]

Bronfman is Canadian. In Canada it is legal to download (but not necessarily upload) music. If Bronfman's kids were doing their downloading in Canada, then they were committing no offense.

Re:actually it may have been perfectly legal

[pafrusurewa]

His nationality is irrelevant. Does he live in Canada or in the US?

It's not stealing.

[plopez]

It is copyright infringement if anything.

And it is a civil violation which must be enforced by the copyright holder.

This is probably a pointless post but remember a few things:
1) Piracy is a very specific offense and a felony. It has *nothing* to do with copyright infringement.

2) There is no such thing as intellectual property. Property has to have some sort of physical presence. Anything intellectual is by definition in a person's mind and therefore has no real physical presence. The works such as stories, plays, music etc produced by the mind can be restricted in distribution by copyright (hence copy + right). But it is *not* 'intellectual property'.

3) Stealing is a crime, unlicensed copying of copyrighted material is not.

We have been so brainwashed we think that 'music piracy' is 'stealing' and a 'crime'. It is not.

As I said. This is probably a pointless post as most people have it so deeply ingrained that there is no way to change thier minds on this.

But I may as well try.

Re:It's not stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The big problem with this is that criminal law isn't enforced by your father, but by the DA. If copyright infringement is a criminal act--and Warner seems to want to argue it is--then this testimony should be faxed over to the local DA ASAP.

Oh, and about that "he didn't know the difference between right and wrong" stuff:

"In many jurisdictions, such as the United States, copyright infringement is a strict liability tort or crime. This means that the plaintiff or prosecutor must only prove that the act of copying or actus reus was committed by the defendant, and need not prove guilty intent or mens rea. Good faith, standing alone, is no defense."

Re:It's not stealing.

[shark72]

I'm enjoying the heck out of the fact that your post was modded "informative."

If you (or anybody else reading this) would like to know more about criminal copyright infringement, you can read S 506 of copyright law, "criminal offenses," right over here.

A good way to learn about actual cases of criminal copyright infringement is to google on "criminal copyright infringement." Or, just keep reading Slashdot... whenever somebody gets jail time for an extreme case, it's usually covered in the YRO section.

Re:It's not stealing.

[Software]

And it is a civil violation which must be enforced by the copyright holder.

Not if you copied more than $1000 worth. From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 :

(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

Although I have to say I'm a little puzzled by the last sentence. If "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.", what would be sufficient? Selling copyrighted works, maybe? Anyway, from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u sc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html:

(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17--
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.

So, yes, his kids may well be subject to criminal prosecution. Any Time/Warner shareholders want to start a shareholder lawsuit to get the company to press charges against the CEO's kids (remember that CEOs just run the company; they don't own it)? If not, then why is the company pressing charges against other people's kids?

Re:It's not stealing.

[E 99]

There is no such thing as intellectual property. Property has to have some sort of physical presence.

Really? This is very good to know. I guess that means that your bank account balance is not property, and if I were to make that balance be transferred into my account, that would not be stealing. You wouldn't mind signing an affidavit to that effect, would you?

Re:It's not stealing.

[JesseMcDonald]

There is no such thing as intellectual property. Property has to have some sort of physical presence.

Ever heard of the stock market??

A share of stock represents part-ownership of specific real (i.e. physical) property along with membership in an organization bound by and party to various contractual agreements regarding the use of that property. The share is not itself property; it is merely a property title.

Property rights are not necessarily tied to specific physical matter -- even the human body gradually exchanges its matter with the surrounding environment while retaining its general form -- but they do represent control over our physical environment within specific areas of space defined by the logical boundaries of physical objects (or, better, the interaction domains of such objects, since some things -- like radio waves -- do not have precise "boundaries" despite having a physical presence). As such property rights are always grounded in -- as the GP put it -- a "physical presence".

For most objects this reduces to the intuitive concept of property, since most objects have fairly well-defined boundaries and only interact with other objects which intersect those boundaries. Some types of property, such as land, are a bit less intuitive due to that fact that the logical boundary of a piece of land is not necessarily in the soil itself, but rather in the space above the soil (still a physical aspect of the environment). Furthermore, certain types of property, such as radio spectrum, may cover the same physical space without any interaction, and such an intersection does not (by itself) imply any conflict. When conflict -- unwanted and unauthorized interaction between property owned by two separate individuals -- does occur, the individual with the earliest claim has "the right of way" and the other must repair any damages caused.

Having established what property is, it remains to establish who will own any given piece of property. This is a far more controversial topic, but the general consensus seems to be that there are two guiding principles in assigning property ownership in a dispute. The first, called "homesteading", is the principle that property which is brought into existance by the actions of an individual, and thus transformed from unowned "land" (in the economic sense) into property, initially belongs to that individual. The second principle is that ownership of property can be transferred in accordance with the will of its current owner. I'm not going to argue for these principles here, but see my profile URL if you're interested in a decent formal justification. Most individuals do tend to uphold both these principles in their own direct interactions with others, though many bend or break them when interacting more indirectly (through the government, for example). A few, of course, tend to disregard them outright, and we call such individuals "criminals".

On the basis of these property rights a complete system of rights can be built, including not only impersonal property rights but also civil rights just as extensive as those guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, including free speach, freedom of religion, freedom of association, right to self-defense, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Re:It's not stealing.

[Bob_Who]

Plopez wrote "We have been so brainwashed we think that 'music piracy' is 'stealing' and a 'crime'. It is not." Thank you for putting the legal facts out there. Its true that copyright violations such as downloading are not a crime in the U.S., its a civil issue, and the fines are nowhere near civil. Eventually, if the oligarch gets their way, all content will be "leased" for limited term usage, we'll never get to "own it" or attempt any unauthorized usage. If we play the tunes a a high school dance or at the beach, then will pay the price of "immediate authorization" like pay-per-view. I remember the early 80's when HBO first hosted prize fights on pay per view. They went after the Bar Owners that advertised the main event and had a cover charge....It put a few out of business. When all else fails, eat the rich.

Re:It's not stealing.

[JesseMcDonald]

"There is no such thing as intellectual property. Property has to have some sort of physical presence."

Ever heard of the stock market??

A share of stock represents part-ownership of specific real (i.e. physical) property

And what is the most valuable part of almost every business? "Goodwill". Customer base. Is that a physical piece of property? Of course not.

I'm certainly not attempting to argue that non-physical, non-property factors don't play any part in the value of the stock, as they certainly do. In loose terms goodwill, etc. can be considered "assets", but while they certainly play a part in the stock market they have nothing to do with property. Neither goodwill nor a customer base represent something over which the company can claim exclusivity of control or protect through defensive coercion, both of which are central to the concept of property. As in matters of reputation, they represent a state of mind and/or pattern of behavior held or practiced by external entities. The only influence the company holds over it lies in non-coercive persuasion; whether the trend will continue ultimately depends on the choices and actions of those external entities, not the company itself. The effect of their opinions on the company's stock price is purely an external benefit (or cost, as the case may be) which the company has every reason to cultivate but no right to demand or protect through coercion.

Goodwill is the most valuable, and for larger tech businesses, IP (patents, TMs). Coke's trademark is worth more than all the corn syrup in the world.

I think it should be plain that the concept of so-called "intellectual property" is incompatible with the definition of property given in the GP on the basis that it subverts the rights of the legitimate property owner in favor of an individual or organization granted a coercion-backed grant of monopoly by the government. Obviously that doesn't mean such monopoly grants (mainly patents and copyrights) are devoid of value to investors, since they correlate with increased future income for that company (at society's expense). The value of a trademark to investors, of course, is primarily due to the association with the goodwill and customer base already discussed above. I think that, unlike copyright and patents, the general structure of the trademark system could survive the demise of "IP" on the basis that violation of a trademark is -- in nearly all cases -- also an instance of fraud. The meaning of the trademark would simply be determined in the same way as the meaning of other terms employed in the products' labelling and advertising, rather than by simple association with the company which "owns" it, and enforcement would be up to the subjects of that fraud rather than the company itself; I suspect little would change from the average person's point-of-view.

Remember Amnesty?

[solinari]

Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman admitted that he was fairly certain that one or more of his children had downloaded music illegally, but despite this direct admission of guilt, no lawsuits are pending. Surprised?

Actually I do recall the RIAA has attempted verious "amnesty" proposals to downloaders. All of them have boiled down to something like: send us some personal information, admit guilt and promise to stop. Of course after you're already being sued is always "too late."

The EFF has a statement on it: http://www.eff.org/share/amnesty.php

This shouldn't imply that they aren't all a bunch of stinking weasels, but that doesn't mean we should jump on them for any old thing. There's plenty of good issues to take them to task on. This just isn't one of them.

Warner CEO doesn't know theft from infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing CDs may be stealing music, but downloading music is not stealing music. At worst it is copyright infringement. But downloading a song does not automatically mean you did not have the right to copy the song. iTMS and other online stores are an example. Even if a copied song infringes on copyright (wasn't a fair use copy), the damages are not equatable with the damages of theft.

If you steal a car from a dealership, they have lost something tangible, with a concrete value that can be counted. That car is no longer in their possession to be sold, used, or inventoried. When a song is copied, the same tangible loss does not occure. The copyright owner still possesses the original tracks, can still reproduce it, still distribute it, still sell it. The damage is not nearly the same. This is especially true in the case where someone copies a song they would otherwise never buy. Did that copy introduce someone to the artist for the first time? Did that person then go out and buy a CD or music from an online music store? That type of free advertising is difficult to put a direct monitary value on. For anyone who believe that for every song copied, someone has to lose a dollar of profit, consider the counter-example that for every song copied, a new song could be sold.

Are you someone who fundamentally believes that all people are criminals out to steal anything and everything they can get their hands on or someone who believes that for the most part people are honest and will pay a reasonable price in exchange for goods and services? What leads some people down the path of blatent and high-volume copyright infringement I don't know, but you have to wonder how much damage is really being done by them. You're not really losing sales, they were never going to spend that money to begin with (even if copying were not an option) and there's no tangible lose as in robbery. As for casual infringement, I don't know how bad it really is. I copied a Benny Benasi track from a friend and wound up buying 3 of his CDs that same year. Come to think of it, that's how I heard about Keoki, Tiesto, Oakenfold, and others... Hmm, so a little bit of casual sharing of music between friends seems to have resulted in a multitude of CD sales.

Copyright is important and infringement is a serious matter, but calling infringement theft creates a phantom menace.

BTW, my bandwidth is so bad that it takes less time to ship CDs bought on Amazon than it would take to download them. Used CDs are fair use too. If you don't like the DRM, the quality of downloaded music, or want a tangible hard copy of the music you buy so that you can transcode to whatever format you please, and want to support a local business, check out your local used CD shop. (That sounded like a sales pitch, no I don't own a used CD shop...)

Respect the law, but be vigilant of people who don't understand the law.

Posting anonymously so I don't get accused of stealing.

So father ...

[rjdegraaf]

... so son.

A good talking to...

[Jinjuku]

Could some one give him a stern talking to about trampling over my fair use rights? After all, right is right and wrong is wrong...

Setting a president

[kbox]

That's ok then.. I'll remember to give myself a "stern talking to" when this copy of can't touch this by MC hammer has finished downloading and they shouldn't have a problem....

Clean Hands

[abe ferlman]

Clean hands doctrine seems to apply here. I know it was the guys kids not him, but that's the case with many RIAA lawsuits isn't it?

Let me deconstruct the problem

[Bryansix]

Warner is a record label. They produce the product and distribute it. Well I think they still do that but they could outsource it. They also as an added incentive market for Artists. The content belongs to the artist who created it. Well it did up until the point that the record label gave them the option of signing over the rights to their content or disappearing into obscurity.

The point is that a few artists on Warner or Sony or Capital or whatever label are worth listening too. The artist creates the content that is entertaining. The labels just act like virtual pimps. Why should an artist suffer because their pimp is an assclown? I agree that boycotting a record label might seem like a good idea but we've been over the catch-22 before. They just assign the decline in sales to piracy and then enact legislation to fight this piracy hence hurting the consumer more. Don't be confused though. I am not saying we should do nothing. Awareness is the thing we need to concentrate on. Write your Senators and representatives. Talk to your non-technical friends about the ill will the RIAA generates. Email the parent companies of these record labels and tell them you think their involvement with the RIAA is despicable. And yes, email this story to anyone you know who is being sued or served a letter from the RIAA.

Re:Let me deconstruct the problem

[teh_chrizzle]

I agree that boycotting a record label might seem like a good idea but we've been over the catch-22 before. They just assign the decline in sales to piracy and then enact legislation to fight this piracy hence hurting the consumer more.

the dead kennedys talked about the music industry and how it was killing music in 1985 with "MTV get off the air". the end of the song went something like "but sales are slumping...and no one will say why... could it be they put out one too many lousy records?"

it's ironic that 20 years later, DK is gone, but the music industry is still here, doing far worse to consumers than in 1985.

Those pesky Warners...

[smitty97]

Yakko, Wakko & Dot are always getting into trouble, he should've seen it coming.

Stealing Music a Crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

What strange planet is this where it can be a crime to 'possess music'? I was born and grew up on a planet where no such concept of 'possessing music' was known and that such a thing could be a crime was never even imagined. The planet I grew up on had people singing songs and playing instruments, for the enrichment of everyone. But here, people singing songs and playing instruments is a crime unless the 'gatekeepers' first exact a payment for the 'privilege' of 'possessing' music, or 'singing' music, or 'playing' music on instruments, else it is a heinous crime against the rules drawn by the gatekeepers.

I long to return to the planet on which I was born and raise, where music, singing and playing was not a crime against the gatekeepers but was something much more important, a means by which people could make themselves, and each other, happy, sharing music, singing and the sounds that the instruments could make.

morality, huh?

[ogionnj]

This from the guy whose family made their money bootlegging liquor during prohibition.

you might want to get a dictionary

[geekoid]

Property:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/property

Not all definitions of property is a tengible thing.

Of course there is "intellectual property". It is defined, written into law, and used in course.

Couldn't Possibly Be That Lucky, Right?

[Quantam]

I don't suppose this could be used to set a precedent to be used by the defense in media company law suits in the future? Any lawyers here?

Dangerous opportunity missed

[LParks]

I can't believe that the RIAA passed up this opportunity.

They could've at least done a half-assed suit against the man, taken him for a couple thousand dollars, and used it as justification that no one is exempt. He wouldn't miss the money, Warner would compensate him, and the RIAA no longer is the evil entity that sues old ladies and single mothers that can't use computers.

Or they could use him as a sacrificial lamb, suing him for everything he's worth, ask for his resignation and/or attempt to get him fired, and cleaned out all his hardware. The RIAA could stand to make a lot of money, gain huge precedent in court against a defendant that can truly afford the costs of high powered attorneys, and only be out one CEO of one its members. Then they could say that every suit is 100% legitimate, and even have many people agree.

Or they could even just make it appear thats what happened, and fire the CEO with the best severence package ever.

It's not stealing

[koan]

it's "copyright infringement" so don't call it stealing.
Beside when you pay for your overpriced CD you don't "own" it you are merely licensed to listen to it.
Until the artist is the one selling it, I won't pay a fricking dime.

Environment of Fear

[mpapet]

The whole point of the RIAA's abuse of individuals is to strike fear and compliance into their hearts.

Like a dog that has been beat for no reason, the idea is individuals should obey whatever the entertainment mega-corps declare as "permitted usage" rules without question and whenever they feel the need to collect more money.

Arguing that the executive class is being treated differently misses the point entirely and more or less validates that the entertainment mega-corps objectives are being met.

Who's going to determine what you can do with your media? You or the media conglomerates? How will that be determined? That's a conversation worth having. Everyday.

RIAA are *&%£!@#

[Bizzeh]

because the father of those who stole the music has money, and is able to fight back against RIAA's bullshit law suit.

Nobody ever got sued for downloading music

[Atroxodisse]

They were sued for sharing music.

Protecting IP

[PaulMorel]

IANAL, but for IP to remain IP, doesn't the IP's owner have the reponsibility of protecting that IP? If the aforementioned IP owner fails to protect his IP, doesn't he lose it? Like in the case of Kleenex, and in the case of Google trying to prevent people from using Google as a verb? Does that just apply to trademarks? I am confused. Some lawyer please correct me.

Re:Protecting IP

[Vegeta99]

Trademarks only for that. With patents and copyrights, feel free to allow said offender to raise capital to sue him for :P

I'm sure they'll do everything he says!

[Maxo-Texas]

No sex before marriage.
No testing of alchohol before they are 18.
No binge drinking (not even once!) in college.
They'll never download, copy, or rip another song and won't accept free copies from friends who offer them (and they'll probably give stern lectures or even turn in their hooligan friends).

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest - MAYBE

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Whilst I agree with your opinion up to a certain point, there are always exceptions.
For instance, I own a collection of vinyl records dating back to the mid 60's or so. Most of these records are not available on CD, or more to the point, even if they were, I have ALREADY bought the music, I shouldn't have to buy it again.
So, I teach my kids that it is OK to download something as long as they are sure they "own" it.
So, yes, I personally think it is dishonest to steal music, but I draw the line at any type of DRM (or is it ARM for analog music?) that prevents me from legitimately, in my opinion, using something I HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT.

What I'm wondering is...

[sirgoran]

Okay, so he admits one or more of his kids "broke the law" and downloaded music "illegally."

He then says that a "after a stern talking-to, his children have suffered the full consequences of their actions."

What I want to know is are they still listening to the music they downloaded or did they replace the illegal copies with legit ones?

As a parent myself, I can talk to my kid till I'm blue in the face but unless I take away the offending toy he's still going to play with it. I think its pretty safe to say that his kid(s) is/are still listening to the illegal downloads. Just goes to show that if you have money and power you get a different version of justice applied to you.

Seems to me that if I did the same as Mr. Bronfman, I'd be looking at a lawsuit.

-Goran

Godwin

[Zephyr14z]

Godwin's Law.

bootleggers

[Potor]

the bronfmans made their money bootlegging liquor. this is delicious irony.

selective enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we should be lobbying for a selective enforcement provision of copyright laws similar to trademark law. If you don't defend you trademark, you effectively lose it. Perhaps this will overwhelm the RIAA and their bretheren, so that they more narrowly define their interests (e.g., only go after "big-commercial" piracy over some $$ amount).

That's not how buying works

[Mr2001]

You seem to be missing the point of why anyone is obligated to pay for anything. It's not because everyone who makes a product or performs a service has some automatic right to get paid; it's because payment is what it takes to convince someone to perform a service or transfer ownership of a product.

Suppose you make a widget, and I want it. That widget is a physical thing, which means we can't both have it at once; someone has to own it, and the initial owner is you because you made it. I have to convince you to chown it to me, so I pay you.

Information, however, doesn't work that way. We can both have it at once, because I can make a copy for myself without taking away your ability to enjoy yours. Therefore, there's no need for either of us to be the owner, and no need to pay you to transfer ownership to me.

Re: Production Costs

[TaoPhoenix]

Content... includes Video/Movies. Even if you somehow locate a cast for free, there's some serious equipment involved. Content really doesn't mean GooTube type cheeseball offerings.

Re: Legally Permissable !?

[TaoPhoenix]

Did I miss something?

If copyright infringement is not "stealing" (different penalties?) ... then it's still ... copyright infringement, right? So what ARE the penalties?

The above post makes it sound like it's all okay again.

Fuck him.

[Unknown Poltroon]

Fuck him and the high horse he rode in on. You know what, I know the rich and priveledged get away with suff. Thats the way it is,and probably always will be. But for this prick ot admit it while he is destroying lives with his lawsuits, fuck him and everything he stands for. I hope he dies of bone cancer. Hopefully this can be used as a legal precedent for someone. Or at least an argument.

We need +1 Heinlein

[Werrismys]

The man was a genius.

Oblig

[joe slacker]

Kid: Sorry dad, didn't think downloading music for free was that big a deal. Bronfman: Not a big deal, huh? Drags kid off to Lars Ulrich's mansion

Re:Oblig

[DreamerFi]

Better that than Michael Jackson's mansion.

Breaking news...

[gwoodrow]

This just in: people are hypocrites. And now back to our regularly scheduled program here at DuhTV.

His Toys, His Call

[jratcliffe]

Listen, the RIAA can decide who to sue and who not to sue. If I come over, take your car, and crash it, you'll probably sue me (quite apart from criminal issues). If your brother does the same thing, you probably wouldn't sue. The fact that RIAA would have the right to sue doesn't in any way oblige them to do so.

Re:His Toys, His Call

[IHC Navistar]

Hell yeah I would sue him! I'd make damn sure he starves for what he did.

music artists WANT you to distribute their music

[rasputin465]

>Do you find not compensating artists for their work to be morally neutral as well?

You are not compensating artists for their work by purchasing their music. It is rare (VERY rare) that an artist will make a profit from sale of their music, and in fact quite a few of them lose money, even the successful artists. Music artists make their money -- and a great deal of money at that -- from performance (what other reason would they possibly have for traveling around, living out of a tour bus most of the year?). The money collected from the sale of their music goes to the record companies, to compensate them for pressing all those CDs, sending them all over the country/world, etc.

For musical artists, records serve one purpose: to promote their performances. Sharing music online, for free, serves this purpose more effectively and efficiently CD distribution or digital music sales. Don't forget, when you download a song, the artist is still given credit. The music is now going directly to you; the record companies don't like it because all of a sudden they have been relegated to the uncomfortable position of 'middle man'.

So remember, if you ARE actually interested in the success of a music artists, the best thing to do for them is to digitally distribute their music.

So we have a right to profit?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Do you find not compensating artists for their work to be morally neutral as well?

You say that as if it were black & white--as if copyright and per-copy fees are the ONLY way to compensate artists. And even then, no, I do not and will never recognize some "right to profit" for ANY sort of labor, including my own. It should be compensated in accordance with its value, to do otherwise is unreasonable. And yes, that means that current copyright laws are clearly unreasonable.

I would be more than happy to see things revert to the way they were before "intellectual property" made most of us criminals in some way (and I don't doubt that you've violated the law, either--I suspect that you, like many others, simply have no idea how far reaching it is or what simple things you may have done that still constitute breaches of the law).

But yes; I would like to see the artists *fairly* compensated. I just don't think that copyright, as it exists now, is fair to anyone. Both the artists and customers get shafted by the industry which buys the laws.

Troll rating service

[Anonymous Coward]

But before you go, I want to mention that the proper way to pluralize a proper noun is with an apostrophe.

Fucking genius. 10 out of 10 for artistic style. Only two bites so far but I expect that's only because the other grammar Nazi's collapsed in an apoplectic fury rendering them unable even to type.

Correction - not all are uploaders

[tacokill]

"Do you have any idea at all how peer-to-peer networks work? Every downloader is an uploader as well."

Not exactly, cowboy. There is one peer to peer system, that does not require upload.

Now shutup and dont tell anybody.

They weren't caught...

[mr.warmth]

I'd just like to point out that the CEO's children weren't caught by RIAA, police, or their ISP. The CEO was simply asked whether his kids ever did this, and he admited that he suspected they did.

It's unfortunate that the writeup nor the linked story mention this (the underlying Reuters story does) because some of the hysterics in this thread are simply nuts. A common theme in this story is try cry along the lines of "some people are more equal than others" which is groundless in this case. Since the kids weren't busted by any authorities, this is no different than any other parent who caught their kids downloading illegal stuff and yelled at them.

Two Problems with That.

[twitter]

1. The Warner CEO should not be able to violate his company's own policy.
2. The Warner CEO has nothing to say about the "property" of the other three big music companies. I'd say "any other" but few outside the RIAA want to rob children of their parent's life savings.

The man is a jackass.

Actually...

[Sockninja]

As a student of music composition, who is hopefully going to be making a living off of my music, I'd say that no, it's not "morally neutral". However, the impending death of intellectual property as a whole is a FACT, and I'd say better to start getting used to it now than later. This is going to be a worldwide struggle and it is going to be up to my generation (people currently in college) to figure out how artists, writers and inventors are going to be able to survive and thrive. So really, download away, DRM is the last gasp of a dying concept. (Make sure you come to see my band though when we tour or I'm SCREWED)

Re:Actually...

[dthree]

Perhaps you could write music for film, TV, or videogames. Get to know sound production well and you could land a full-time gig as a sound editor for a video post house. Sound editors with musical skills are more valuable that those who aren't. Also, you could build up a following on the web for your band that could help increase ticket sales when you tour. There is an example where giving away MP3s would be beneficial. If I was a young musician today, i wouldn't be working towards a label deal, I would be full-on involved with the web to find my fanbase. It amazes me today that so many young bands are still awed at the prospect of a record contract. I see this in the musician wanted ads on craigslist all the time ("we have management and are courting labels") and when I talk to bands in the local scene. I just want to ask them, do you really want the 1000:1 chance that your band won't be worse off than before they signed, owing the label thousands for recoupables if their cd doesn't break 200,000 copies? And if they do, what is the chance that they will be the next multi-platinum artist and actually make a few million, another 1000:1? It;s ust as risky as the lotter, but you pay with your sweat and soul.

Re:Actually...

[Weedlekin]

"Perhaps you could write music for film, TV, or videogames"

Do you not see the flaw in this statement? If the concept of IP disappears, and everybody can simply download any content whenever they feel like it sans advertising, then film, TV, and video-games will also be affected, and there won't be any money for them to pay composers and musicians (or for that matter actors, animators, camera and lighting people, etc.) with. I'm not sympathetic towards the media / distribution companies because many of them are (to be kind) parasitic, but by the same token, if there are no mechanisms to ensure that content creators get adequately compensated for their work, then certain types of high-cost visual media will not be produced. Expensive series will disappear from TV, which will be entirely dominated by game shows, "reality TV", and other forms of live "entertainment"; movies will have sharply reduced budgets because they can only count on cinema attendance for their income, which will be drastically reduced by a steady proliferation of home cinema systems that can download a high resolution version of the product in some cases before it goes on general release; and readily available torrents of video games (again before they're released) will eliminate professional products with the exception of MMOGs.

Re:Actually...

[dthree]

Yeah, i see your point. I didn't correlate that part of my post with the parent's statement about the "death of IP", even though that was only part of my answer. To go off on a tangent a bit, I do think that despite the easy and free availability of media through the net, clever producers will find revenue streams that others haven't though of and that take advantage of the net's ability to copy data easily. Some forms of media may die, like maybe prime-time tv, but others will rise up in their place. Game developers will figure out non-invasive ways to secure their products, like maybe MAC-address based activation, or maybe PC gaming will die out to be replaced by console gaming that is harder to pirate. Who knows, but I believe what the parent said, its a fact and that we better start trying to figure it out.

Never Say Always

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The point is that abuse of power, unfair application of the legal system and the justice system is always newsworthy and always worth fighting against.

I think what the GP was thinking was a warped version of the ol' "choose your battles" rational. George Bush's particular instance of abuse of power is IMHO not worth fighting against. It is, after all, harmless. I would argue that this abuse of power is also harmless. In fact, I would argue that this is good news. We now have some nice leverage in the argument that the RIAA are unfairly punishing people.

"Stealing is stealing, and right is right."

[Anonymous Coward]

"Really, son, why don't you buy the CD's? I mean, after all, we're like fucking kajillionnaires."

Really, he just wants his kids to buy CD's as practice for their future of buying artists.

I Doubt It

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Don't they still hold the rights to the lyrics themselves?

The last thing that a music studio needs is the artist to have any leverage over the use of their music.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The kettle calling the pot black.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Warner's CEO was honest about his children downloads music without paying the proper people. Call what you like it but this is still stealing.
All I ask is get the big fish which duplicate CD en mass and truly take money out the artist. However if you get enough little guys to take enough songs then this will be an issue also. It is the leaders that should set the example for rest of us to follow. The leaders shouldn't duck away from responsibility just because they are executives or other privileges.

For those that don't understand the reference ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Animal Farm by George Orwell

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So who's gonna sue

[Maximilio]

His sorry ass? That's what I want to know.

when did they say that?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the US Supreme court, copyright infringement is not stealing. That is a fact.

Just curious which case it was.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

7 kids?

[Treates2]

god damn talk about morally wrong duplication!!

Van Gogh's

[bronney]

I don't know anything about copyrights. But after reading so much in this thread I am starting to think. Why are we allowed to copy Vincent's work then? If the IP mentality is so high up in heaven, why don't some of us feel a wee bit guilty about color copying Vincent's work on a printer?

What is the difference between copying/distributing illegal music and copying/distributing starry night? Can we copy Beethoven's work? Are we copying some of the "intellectual properties" merely because the author is dead for some time and therefore we could care less about them whooping our butts?

How do you think Vincent would feel if he sees his scanned paintings on wiki? Flattered? Angered? Intrigued? Disgusted? Do you disregard the feelings of the original artist and abide by "the law" on this piece of "intellectual" property that would probably survive long after the original artist can feel anything anymore?

Morality isn't so simple.

Isn't it a crime?

[Belial6]

Isn't copyright infringement a crime now, and not just a civil issue? Shouldn't these people be arrested and charged with a crime? You know, as in "The people vs.".

Who do we contact to let them know that we expect the law to be enforced against a high profile criminal who has publicly admitted their guilt?

full consequences

[AlHunt]

From the summary:
>after a stern talking-to, his children have suffered the full consequences of their actions.

Really? Did they each send 10G's to the RIAA? Plus pay some sleaze-bag attorney to negotiate?

hmph... didn't think so ....

Mod Parent Up

[Millenniumman]

The parent presented a very good argument, and was modded down purely because of disagreement. Good moderators should fix this, even if they disagree.

Slashtard?

[Petersko]

Oh for fuck's sake. You win the slash-fucking-tard PAVLOV award for the first repeat of a tired and nauseatingly overused (and not-even-funny) joke, right on cue.

So where is the joke? Tell this poor slashtard so that I might revel in your brilliance. Last time I checked, Godwin's Law was an honest-to-goodness tradition, one going back at least 15 years.

Go on. Enlighten me.

As far as being "today's slashtard", well... I can only conclude you're angry because you think I'm after your throne.

Re:Slashtard?

[Anonymous Coward]

So where is the joke?

Here, I'll show you how it works. I'll type something, and you try to control yourself.

Me: Hitler
You: GODWIN! GODWIN! GODWIN! (Score:5, Funny)

Me: Germany. WWII
You: GODWIN! GODWIN! GODWIN! (Score:5, Funny)

Me: Nazi
You: GODWIN! GODWIN! GODWIN! (Score:5, Funny)

See?

Re:Constitutional Issue?

[freedom_india]

The application of Law is not same for you and me.
The Law may treat everyone as impersonally equal, but the application is quite different.
Why do you think poor people get jail time for stealing an apple, while Winona Ryder walks away with community service?
Unless EFF sues Warner's CEO's children under common law for stealing, RIAA is NOT going to do it.
And since RIAA refuses to prosecute, you and i can't claim immunity under that fact.
A copyright holder may selectively prosecute people. That's his/her right.
Just as you can't claim to a Judge about speeding that many others were doing so at same time...
Look, the Prez has Beatles on his iPod. DOes that mean RIAA is going to sue him? Of course not.

If there's a slim chance that their baiting John Doe results in a Subpoena to 1500 Pennsylvania Ave, am sure the Secret Service would do a body cavity search of RIAA lawyers for 1 week, and then throw them into Gitmo.

Boy i wish that would happen.

Re:Constitutional Issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

The statute you cite basically says criminal infringement == $1000 in copied music over a 6 month period. While I guess you could construe part (a)(1) "private financial gain" to mean not paying, really this doesn't have much to do with this issue - unless you download $1000 of music in a 6-month period. Hell, even I don't have that much free time.

So if Bronfman's kids are off the hook...

[Nybble's Byte]

then now we know that OJ didn't do it.

It's NOT stealing! Get over it!

[ggravier]

Contrary to what the press (and the big media companies) want you to think, downloading music from the internet (or any other source) is NOT stealing. At most, it is copyright infringement. This is not the same thing.

Compensating artists

[Oshkoshjohn]

How about an entirely new model? Why not have artists charge admission to their performances and give away recordings as advertising? Distribution on the Internet costs almost nothing. If a performer is any good, then people will pay to see and hear them live. If they suck, then the recordings will suck, too.

Re: Boycotting RIAA labels

[TaoPhoenix]

This is like a distributed Prisoner's Paradox.

Some of these companies have the money to survive decades on prior earnings. So cutting yourself off from your favorite music "in hopes" that 75 million people follow creates a lot of personal hurt without *any* assurance of positive result. You can try acquiring your music through the SecondHand market, such as Ebay, to make sure companies such as Warner here, are not receiving any This Quarter Sales.

My compromise has been to purchase the absolute essentials, and then spend a lot of effort learning about alternative sources. Having stocked my favorite bands, I am now assuring that *new* content comes from non-RIAA sources. At some point I will have a website up exploring these content sources.

Re:music artists WANT you to distribute their musi

[Anonymous Coward]

>
> Music artists make their money -- and a great deal of money
> at that -- from performance (what other reason would they
> possibly have for traveling around, living out of a tour
> bus most of the year?)
>

Well, the problem is that tickets cost a fortune. Things must be more balanced.

Theft

[Zaatxe]

Q: how do you know your car was stolen?
A: you go to where it was and it isn't there anymore

Q: how do you know your walled was stolen?
A: you check your back pocket and the it isn't there anymore

Q: do you know your music was stolen?
A: ...

Mod Grandparent Down!

[mrchaotica]

What are you, an idiot? The grandparent does not deserve to be modded up, because it is factually wrong. No matter how you may feel about it, copyright infringement and theft are both explicitly defined by law, and they are not the same thing! Furthermore, the reason the two are not considered equivalent is not historical reasons as he said, but by the fact that copyright infringement involves duplicating something, not taking it!

Copyright infrigement?

[insomniac8400]

The government really needs to heavily fine the music industry for repeated calling these cases of copyright infringment stealing.

A is A

[sacrilicious]

stealing music is stealing music. Frankly, right is right and wrong is wrong, particularly when a parent is talking to a child.

Speaking in tautologies is one of the surest indicators that what's being said is dogma/indoctrination rather than reason.

Re:Constitutional Issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTF"A" - copyright infringement is only a crime when used to gain commercial advantage or private financial gain, or through reproduction or distribution of content with a retail value of over $1000 within a 180 day period. Clearly neither of these fit the situation, so it is not a criminal offence under this law. Also, note the previous post which (probably correctly) explains that copyright infringement is generally speaking a civil violation (see "It's not stealing" by plopez (54068) on Tuesday December 05, @03:37PM #17118440)

"copywrite"

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If they think copyright infringement is so bad...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

... why don't people call it what it is, instead of disingenuously referring to it as "stealing"? We don't call soldiers "murderers", even though they also kill people.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Constitutional Issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really acceptable for some persons to have immunity from a criminal law because they are the children of the almighty CEO of a copyright cartel?

Iunno -- it works for the Bush sluts.

Jenna got off scot free when she violated the underage drinking law in Texas which her father had personally signed (but only for your kids and mine).