12 year old girl getting sued

[Styles]

Look most corps have to reinvent a business model every 20 or so years just to stay in business. The issue with the RIAA is they failed to embrace new technology and now have to pay for the consequences for not doing so and now use the legal system to sue people to get revenue. Another corp doing the same thing right now is SCO.

I don't feel pity for big corps using their 100 million lawyers to manipulate the justice system against the little guy!!! The only thing RIAA and SCO are thinking about is the bottom line and keeping the investors happy. period.

 

[airgator]

Ok so lets equate a 12 year old selling drugs now with a 12 year old downloading a Brittney Spears song.

 

[Styles]

airgator

quick off topic!!!

is that TATU girls for your avatar? ethier way grrrrrowllllll

 

[airgator]

I dunno and I don't care. I'd rather not know their names.

 

[Thedude]

The RIAA is the same group that cried bloody murder when cassette tapes came out. Hmmm, I dont think it wiped out record sales then just like Mp3 haven;t wiped out sales now. The RIAA fails to metion that they have had fewer artists with fewer album releases coupled with a sluggish ecomony. I;m sorry but I refuse to pay more than $12.95 for a standard CD.

 

[A Squared]

I'm going to disagree with Bart. File sharing is no different than copying music from the radio,

Yeah, you're right, it's copyright infringement and it's a crime

burning a CD from a friend,

Right again, it's copyright infringement and it's a crime

taping a TV show with a VCR

you're on a roll, that too is copyright infringement and it's a crime.

or going to a library and reading a book you didn't buy.

Bzzzzzt, sorry, your winning streak is over. borrowing from a library isn't copyright infringement, and it's absolutely nothing like stealing CD's. When you take the book back to the library, there's still only one copy of the book. If you want to own the book to have on your shelves, you still have to buy your own copy. If you photocopy the entire book then it becomes a crime, just like the first 3. A library is no different than borrowing your friends CD to listen to it. Nothing wrong with it at all. As soon as you copy it becomes a crime.

The first three acts you mentioned are just as much theft as downloading and copying music. The fact that no-one is actively pursuing people who do these things doesn't make them legal, it's just that they are much harder to enforce, and they are not as prevalent and don't cost the companies as much money. The quality of recorded broadcast material will always be poorer quality and seriously, and there's not much of a market for recordings of old seinfeld episodes anyway...so this stuff is ignored. If you will recall when VCR's first started becoming popular (although based on the maturity of your ethics I'm going to guess that you've lived in a world where VCR's have always existed) the television production companies made a lot of noise about copyright infringement. Ultimately they stopped because their revenue comes from advertisers and the relatively small number of people who taped shows and watched then later didn't have a measurable effect on their revenues.


The arguments are always the same, stealing music is OK because:

1) It’s really easy to do

2) Everyone’s doing it.

3) They are big greedy companies.

And in this particular case;

It’s ok because she’s a 12 year old Girl. (huh ??)

OK folks, suppose that some new technological advance made it really easy for 12 year-old girls to shoplift gum, or VCR’s, or training bras from some large chain store (wal-mart has been mentioned, so we’ll use that) And suppose that this technological advance made it difficult to catch training bra thieves, and a third of the 12 year-old girls in the US started stealing training bras from Wal-Mart. That’s a lot of training bras. That theft is going to cost Wal-mart a lot of money. Now ask yourself, should wal-mart just grin and let their training bras be stolen, because;

1) it’s really easy to do, so it’s OK and

2) a lot of people are doing it, so it’s OK, and

3) Wal-Mart is a big company, so it’s OK, and

4) besides, they’re only 12 year-old girls, so it’s OK?

Folks there is no difference between stealing training bras and songs. It’s theft, it costs the companies money, and it’s against the law. It is no different that if you walked into the music store and stuck the CD in your pocket and walked out I suspect that most of you who think stealing music is OK do a whole bunch of it yourselves. You really like being able to rip off whatever music your greedy little hearts desire, but you don’t want to think of yourselves as thieves, so you develop all these bizarre, convoluted rationalizations to convince yourselves that your crimes are really OK and not crimes at all.

It’s not OK, it’s theft, it’s clearly and unambiguously against the law, and the people you are stealing from are taking legal steps to stop you when and where they are able.


As for Dep676;

"I suppose the two that posted here have never taped a program on TV? That's illegal too just look at the credits and it tells you that. As far speeding I suppose you never speed in your car? I will say that you are a liar."

Yeah, like most people, I break the speed limit occasionally. (less and less as I've grown older, it's called maturity) When I've been caught, I didn't try to convince myself that somehow what I was doing was OK. I exceeded the speed limit, I got caught, I have no-one to blame but myself. As for taping TV shows, I own neither a TV nor a VCR. Never have.


Oh, this latest one from another ethically challenged listener is priceless:

"I;m sorry but I refuse to pay more than $12.95 for a standard CD."

Hmmm, OK, I refuse to pay more than $200 for a pair of Bose noise canceling headsets, so I’m going to steal them from my local pilot shop.

Hey, if you don’t want to pay the asking price, don’t buy it, but that has got to be one of the lamest rationalizations for theft I have ever heard.

 

[I.P. Freley]

>>>You need to quit with your almighty attitude.<<<

Pointing out that illegal behavior is illegal is not an almighty attitude, it's just pointing out the obvious.

Because I have sped in my car, or even downloaded a couple of songs off the internet and know it's illegal doesn't make me "almighty". I just realize that using the "everyone's doing it" rationalization for illegal behavior is no rationalization at all.

When I get caught for doing something wrong, sure, I'm annoyed. But I own up to the ramifications for my actions when I get caught and don't decry the entire system or launch into anti-big business/government rhetoric.

I've paid my share of speeding tickets, parking tickets, etc. If this 12 year-old (or her defenders) thinks she should get off scot-free because she's an "honor student" or because "everyone's doing it" or "the record companies are stealing from us" is indulging in the fabulous, All-American Unaccountability Syndrome.

Cheers.

 

[CE402]

Apples and Oranges

I think what I see here is two groups arguing around in circles about two very different topics, both of which appear to be intertwined. There is no question that file swapping is illegal. There is also no question that a certain small percentage of it can be filed under "crime that doesn't appear on the radar" -- i.e. going 72 in a 65, taping the football game, etc. However it is obvious that the record companies feel that the amount of file swapping occuring at present is significantly higher than the "acceptable" level, and that it is hurting their business -- an understandable position. I think that the "pro-swapping" folks see file swapping as a legitimate (though illegal) subversion of an ethically bankrupt industry -- an industry that makes enormous profits at the expense of both artists and consumers alike. Respect for the law is a necessary componenet of a healthy society, however subverting an obtuse, callous, and arrogant industry (as many pro-swappers consider the recording industry to be) by non-violent means could also be considered a healthy step. Sounds like a debate for Ethics or Civics 101. Any college types on here?

 

[bigD]

From a purely legal standpoint the RIAA is right on the money. Justify it how you want, but it's illegal, and the RIAA is just taking action.

But personally, I feel the RIAA doesn't have a clue. They're doing more harm to themselves than good. They will NOT beat this. If someone wants to share music, they will. The hackers that spend their time trying to bypass the controls, copyright protection, etc...are far more talented than anyone the RIAA can hire to try and stop them. So really, they won't put any real dent at all in the music sharing, while more and more of their legitamate customers are getting pissed off by their behavior and going somewhere else.

 

[CE402]

You're right BigD -- it's like the radar gun vs. radar detector wars revisited. Anyway the two conflicting issues here are: RIAA's LEGAL right to recoup losses from copyright violators vs. general public's desire for better music selection at what many believe is a reasonable price -- far below what is now the retail standard. Two totally different issues. Both have points. The RIAA is on solid legal ground and has every legal right to pursue the action they are taking. However, the RIAA should understand that the public is dissatisfied with the poor selection and high cost of "corporate music". They are a very unsympathetic plaintiff -- hence the view of many that file-swapping is legitimate subversion. When they show the "average" (not) file swapper on the local news, its usually some pimply faced kid from BU or MIT saying "Dude, why should I PAAAAAY for music when I can like have it for FREEEEEE man!" or some equally self-centered ignorant statement. Part of the problem is that we are exposed to the worst elements of both camps (bad music and ignorant swappers), so it's a very polarizing issue. I'm putting my self to sleep writing this wonderfully insightful (not) stuff so I'll stop now.