Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Media Music Government The Courts News

Warner CEO Admits His Kids Stole Music 533

Posted by kdawson
from the do-as-i-say dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warner CEO Admits His Kids Stole Music

Comments Filter:
  • by fluch (126140) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:27PM (#17117088)
    Just some people are more equal than other.

    Sounds familiar.

    And not surprising.
    • by PoloniumSandwich (1035998) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:40PM (#17117334) Homepage
      "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
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:46PM (#17117480)
      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by quixote9 (999874)
        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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @04:16PM (#17118050)
      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
    • by Salvance (1014001) * on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @05:08PM (#17119024) Homepage Journal
      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."
    • bootleggers (Score:4, Informative)

      by Potor (658520) <farker1@gma i l .com> on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @06:32PM (#17120674) Journal
      the bronfmans made their money bootlegging liquor. this is delicious irony.
  • by StringBlade (557322) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:29PM (#17117112) Journal
    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.
    • by LordSnooty (853791) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:34PM (#17117222)
      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?
    • by bill_kress (99356) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:47PM (#17117496)
      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.
    • by Bryansix (761547) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:55PM (#17117648) Homepage
      That's a backwards argument if I ever heard of one. You would most easily be classified as a defeatist [wikipedia.org]. 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.
      • by Hijacked Public (999535) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @04:33PM (#17118386)
        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.

        • 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
    • by spun (1352) <(moc.oohay) (ta) (yranoituloverevol)> on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:56PM (#17117654) Journal
      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."
      • by StringBlade (557322) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @04:08PM (#17117866) Journal

        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.

  • neat (Score:4, Funny)

    by tont0r (868535) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:29PM (#17117122)
    Hopefully I can get my dad to give me a stern talking to after I rob a bank.
  • by John.P.Jones (601028) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:30PM (#17117138)
    No, there's to much, let me sum up...

    Life's not fair.
  • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:31PM (#17117156) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • 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.
  • by cdrguru (88047) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:32PM (#17117178) Homepage
    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.
    • Yes, they are. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KingSkippus (799657) * on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:51PM (#17117570) Homepage Journal
      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.

  • Punishment? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Non-CleverNickName (1027234) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:32PM (#17117192)
    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.
  • Download vs Share (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheFlyingGoat (161967) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:34PM (#17117220) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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.

      • 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: (Score:2, Informative)

          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 "l
    • by Ahnteis (746045)
      They always *publicize* that people are sued for downloading, but you are correct -- they are actually sued for uploading.
    • 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 uploa
    • by PFI_Optix (936301)
      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."
  • by fotbr (855184) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:36PM (#17117270) Journal
    So we're good then, right RIAA?
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:37PM (#17117294) Homepage Journal
    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.

    <
  • 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).
  • 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. 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.
  • The "Stern Talking-To" department.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:45PM (#17117454) Homepage
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by westyvw (653833)
      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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RsG (809189)

      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

      • by Jtheletter (686279) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @04:50PM (#17118700)
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by RsG (809189)
          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
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cpt kangarooski (3773)
      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
  • 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 stealin
  • by 8127972 (73495) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:51PM (#17117572)
    .... 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?
  • So... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zebra_X (13249) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:51PM (#17117582)
    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!
  • by openright (968536) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @03:53PM (#17117606) Homepage
    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.
  • Wow (Score:3, Funny)

    by MutantEnemy (545783) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @04:01PM (#17117744) Homepage
    "stealing music is stealing music"
    "right is right"
    "wrong is wrong"

    This guy's just overflowing with profound truths.
  • Yes, They Have (Score:3, Informative)

    by waldoj (8229) <waldo@jaquit[ ]rg ['h.o' in gap]> on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @04:02PM (#17117758) Homepage Journal
    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. :)
  • by Absolut187 (816431) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @04:12PM (#17117948) Homepage
    Dad: Son, stealing music is wrong, which is wrong.

    Son: But Daaa-ad,
    If you want me to stop downloading music, you need to increase my allowance.
    $50/month just isn't enough.
    That's barely 2 CDs.
    Billy's dad is a CEO, and he gets $500/month.
    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

    Dad: Ok, I'll tell you what. I'll sue some other people's kids for doing exactly what you did, and I'll give you half the money so you can buy more music.. legally, which is right, is right.

    Son: *sniff* Really? *sniff*

    Dad: You bet son. You're better than regular people.

    Son: Yay! Thanks daddy!

  • by Luscious868 (679143) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @04:12PM (#17117954)
    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.
  • by jbr439 (214107) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @04:33PM (#17118378)
    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.
  • It's not stealing. (Score:4, Informative)

    by plopez (54068) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @04:37PM (#17118440) Journal
    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.
  • by Absolut187 (816431) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @10:11PM (#17123288) Homepage
    I think this raises an interesting constitutional issue:

    When copyright infringement is a crime [usdoj.gov], and people are being jailed for it, is it really acceptable to have the law applied willy-nilly based on the whims of the RIAA/MPAA?
    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?
    Does this situation create a constitutional defense against the attacks of the RIAA?
    Does the 8th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause and/or the implied Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment protect us against the capricious application of the criminal law at the whim of a private party?
  • A is A (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sacrilicious (316896) on Wednesday December 06, 2006 @01:09PM (#17132034) Homepage
    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.

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.

Working...