Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Just some people are more equal than other.
Sounds familiar.
And not surprising.
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.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
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.
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
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.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
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.
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:
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.
.... 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?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Except the artist probably doesn't hold the rights to that song, or at least that performance of it.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
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.
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?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.
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.
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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).
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Speaking in tautologies is one of the surest indicators that what's being said is dogma/indoctrination rather than reason.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.