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.'"
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?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
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.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
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.
These stories are free but worth money.
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?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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 :)
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.
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.)
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.
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)
...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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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]).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz