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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion