12 year old girl getting sued

[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.

 

[jarhead]

BigD

Is it possible that the RIAA considers that the downloaders will never buy the CDs to start with? How can you "P.O." a market that never buys your products in the first place? "Inquiring minds want to know"

 

[ibaflyer]

I guess that this raises an age old question. What laws do we enforce and what laws do we ignore?

There may be valid arguements for both sides. Do we as a society get to pick what laws we have to obey and which ones are for all of the other people? NO!

The law does exist and is applicable to everyone. I, as a pilot, would not fly passangers on my plane without being current. Not because I am not able to fly, not because I have forgotten how to take-off and land. I do this because it is the law. If I would elect to not follow the FAR's and I get ramp checked, is it the FAA's fault? My Instructors? Nope... it is mine! and it is because of a choice that I had made. Sure, there may be others that do this and never get caught. It still is against the law.

I guess that what I am trying to say is......we all need to be held responsible for the laws that we break. The legal system may not be perfect but it is the only one we have.

Just remember, when you want to make a point, you have to start somewhere. I think that this is what this company is doing. Starting somewhere.

Just my .02

 

[Sctt@NJA]

I heard this interesting bit on NPR.

The way these non-centralized sharing schemes work you have no way of knowing the quality of what you are about to download and sometimes the files are corrupt.

So.. some technological academic types did a little psychological statistical type study to see what % of corrupt files would be necessary to deterr a large % of downloaders.

The record companies could fight the illegal downloading of songs by flooding a crap load of corrupt files into the system and turning people off with always getting crappy corrupt files.

Seems the smarter way to me - fight technology with technology.

 

[Styles]

They did do this.. And failed... P2P developers then started to implement md5 hashes to files these hashes were then used to give each file it's own fingerprint. The server then counted the total amount of people who had the song with the same md5 hash. The more people who had the same md5 hash the high ranked that file was, the lower the number of people who had the file the lower the rank was. All you would have to do is look for a file who had the most people, and you could avoid corrupted files and or altered files all together.

 

[Tailwind]

Be specific...Not emotional

The law is not clear on copying music.

My girlfriend makes mix tapes for me and now she makes mix CDs
from music that she either bought or borrowed.
The law did not have a problem with that because:

MONEY WAS NOT EXCHANGED FOR THE MUSIC

That is a BIG point that many of you on BOTH sides are missing.
If I own a CD, I can copy it a 1000 times. Make one for my brother or a friend AS LONG AS I don't receive money for the copies.

If I copy a T.V. show and then let my friend borrow the tape (for any length of time) it's legal. Go ahead ask a lawyer (a competent lawyer) and he'll tell you the same.

That doen't mean that the RIAA can't sue you, they can. And that's usually enough to scare people to stop.

I know what you're thinking..."Napster didn't charge for the music!"
That's correct...however, the RIAA's lawyers used a scalpel to carve out a niche that said because Napster was a central server locale it was acting in the capasity of a distributer not a friend letting another borrow a CD or tape.
Napster also was accepting money for pop up ads and the lawyers deduced that it was receiving money for the song trading in a round-about fashion.

Another thing, downloading a file is not the same as stealing a CD from the store. The CD in the store has the artwork, lyrics, jewlbox, pictures- the whole package. Besides, people STILL record music from the radio all the time.

It's the same thing people cried about when VCR's came out.
They all cried..."Nobody will ever go to the movies anymore!
The'll just watch old movies/shows in their homes!"
They also said that certain people would be recording a show and then distributing it to everyone else and the Movie companies' profits would die out. In fact, the opposite happened.

And another BIG point to remember:
The RIAA is complaing that profits are down(which the are) but they are saying that it's ALL because of people downloading.
Such B.S.--Oh sure! It can't possibly be because the RIAA hasn't put out any good music in many many years!

C'mon, you all know it to be true...the music scene today is pure garbage.

What the RIAA should have done was prepare for the internet and offer good service and fair prices for down loading directly from them. But they chose to ignore this new medum and have lost some where they could have gained.

O.K. I off the soap box, your turn...

Wait... I thought this site was supposed to be related to aviation?
My bad.

 

[A Squared]

well, that's an interesting angle, 402.

I'll bite; I might be sympathetic if it were some product which was essential to our existence, like electricity, or wheat, or water. The thing is, people aren't going to die, or even be seriously inconvenienced if they don't have the latest Brittany Spears release. If you don't like the industry, avoid those products. The newest Brittany Spears release is not a necessity by any stretch, it's a minor luxury. It is well within the financial grasp of most teenagers and all employed adults to plunk down the price of a CD without undue financial hardship, although, perhaps not as often as they'd like. Now, I like beer, but it's not a necessity. If the beer industry priced beer out of my grasp, I'd stop drinking it. It wouldn't justify me holding up liquor stores. It would be a different story if a corrupt food industry made it impossible to feed myself and I was dying of malnutrition. In that case, you might find me sneaking into the fields of the evil corporate farms and stealing corn, but that ain't what we're talking about here.

Much noise is made about the evil, corrupt recording industry. I doubt that they are any more evil or corrupt than any other industry. Let's be honest, it's just a bunch of morally bereft delinquents trying to justify in thier own minds their stealing. Maybe the recording industry takes too big a bite of the profits, maybe it doesn't, we can argue that all day, but one thing is for d@mn sure, when you steal music, you may be stealing the music company's unfair profits, but you also steal what little slice of the pie the musician would get, however small it may be. So how do you justify stealing from the artist, the guy who made the music, the guy you say is getting screwed by the record company? Please, please explain to me; if the poor artist is getting screwed by the record label, how does that justify you stealing from him too?

His share is too small so it's allright for you to steal that from him?


Now, if some artist, or some technological wiz comes up with some way that the music can be distributed directly to you, and you can pay him directly for making a copy, and the recording industry collapses, because it no longer gets a slice of the pie, well great, I'm all for it. Too bad for the recording industry, they are now out of the loop. But, each one of you who are trying to claim the moral high ground by copying music are going to turn on the artist and try to cheat him out of his due also. Please, let's be honest, it's not about you fighting the good fight against an evil industry, it's about you wanting to steal music so you don't have to pay for it, and every one of you knows in your heart that you'll steal from the artist (you already do), just as fast as you steal from the recording company.

 

[cherokee]

Gotta agree with A-squared and IPFreeley on this one. Unfortunatley we have too many people in this society that refuse to accept responsibility for their actions and instead try to blame others. Unfortunately a large increase of this during the 90s.

'It's not my fault I'm fat, Mc Donalds forced me to stuff 4 Big Macs into my pie-hole everyday.'

'It's not my fault I spilled coffee in my lap, Mc Donalds made the coffee too hot'

'Its' not my fault I illegally stole songs off the internet, the big mean record companies deserve it'

If you want to bring down prices on music, don't buy it. Companies will be forced to reduce prices. But to rationalize stealing music because it's too expensive is a lame excuse. I guess since the pants at the store are more than I want to pay I can just steal them because Levi's make enough money.

 

[labbats]

RIAA dug its own grave when they greedily RAISED prices when CDs came out. It actually cost them considerably less to print them in comparison to records and tapes, but they found they could charge more for them anyway, and did. Had they not done so, I don't believe file sharing would be what it is today.

 

[Styles]

guess since the pants at the store are more than I want to pay I can just steal....

No I would go to K-Mart, Wal-Mart etc.... This is were a monopoly comes into play and price fixing! which the RIAA has done and have been caught doing.....

 

[A Squared]

"If I own a CD, I can copy it a 1000 times. Make one for my brother or a friend AS LONG AS I don't receive money for the copies."


I don't think so. As soon as you start handing out copies of that CD to others, I believe that you're violating copyright laws. You may wish to believe that it's ok because that's emotionally convenient for you, but I think that if you bothered to actually look into it, you'll find the reality is different. I'd be willing to revise my opinion if you can document that claim, but I seriously doubt you can.

Copyright laws are intended to prevent depriving the owner of intellectual property of royalties. If you make a copy of a CD you bought and put the original on the shelf for safe keeping and listen to hte copy, you haven't deprived anyone of royalties. That is legal. As soon as you make multiple copies and start distributing them to others, you're in violation of the same laws as Napster.

"What the RIAA should have done was prepare for the internet and offer good service and fair prices for down loading directly from them."

Oh, Horse$hit, every one of us here knows that the punks stealing music are going to steal it regardless of how cheaply it can be purchased. That's the whole point, why pay the artist for writing and performing the music and the publishing company for producing the music when I can steal it for the cost of a blank CD?.

Sorry, that's just another lame attempt to blame the companies for your theft.