Warner CEO Admits His Kids Stole Music 533
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.'"
All people are equal (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds familiar.
And not surprising.
Re:All people are equal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All people are equal (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:All people are equal (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:All people are equal (Score:4, Informative)
Which is to say, "not at all morally wrong".
Re:All people are equal (Score:4, Insightful)
The rest of us get to eat cake, it would seem.
Re:All people are equal (Score:5, Insightful)
I assure you, the talkings-to I got as a kid did not go like that.
-Kurt
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"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 i
Re:All people are equal (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not disagreeing with that. The actual point of the original
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All people are equal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All people are equal (Score:5, Insightful)
Are copyright extensions morally neutral? That sword cuts both ways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All people are equal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Um, less talented musicians?
Which means so much when it comes to paying a mortgage and educating and feeding your childre
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 aro
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 m
Re:All people are equal (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
bootleggers (Score:4, Informative)
Meh...welcome to Real Life (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This Must Be Nearly A Record (Score:5, Funny)
It's subtle, but I think we might have a new record for the speed of execution of Godwin's Law [encycloped...matica.com]. From a topic on Warner Brothers and the RIAA to Nazi's in 2 easy steps.
Re:This Must Be Nearly A Record (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Let me deconstruct the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that a few artists on Warner or Sony or Capital or whatever label are worth listening too. The artist creates the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
neat (Score:4, Funny)
Re:neat (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me explain... (Score:3, Funny)
Life's not fair.
Can we seize all his computers at work and home? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hello?? - the guy runs a music label (Score:5, Insightful)
Downloaders not being sued (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Punishment? (Score:5, Funny)
Screw a stern talking-to.
Screw lawsuits.
I, for one, suggest that he lock his kids in the WB watertower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that where they put that stupid frog?
(Of course this is off topic. So is the topic.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Download vs Share (Score:3, Insightful)
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-MAY-to, To-MAH-to (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
He should pay up, cynically (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
I gave myself a stern talking to.... (Score:5, Funny)
Text adventure style.. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
<
poor understanding of the word direct (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
How many of you are being sued?
I 'no longer do that' (Score:2)
I can't wait to see the RIAA's new task force (Score:2)
The "Stern Talking-To" department.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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
Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 proper
Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
stealing is stealing ... but (Score:2)
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
So... Since this guy is a billionare...... (Score:4, Insightful)
So... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whooo!
Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
"right is right"
"wrong is wrong"
This guy's just overflowing with profound truths.
Yes, They Have (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
They Just Don't Get It (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
actually it may have been perfectly legal (Score:5, Informative)
It's not stealing. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
A is A (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking in tautologies is one of the surest indicators that what's being said is dogma/indoctrination rather than reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)