Rules and laws must be strictly followed and abuses severely punished…..for others. This is like the politicians who preach and regulate ethical and moral behaviour and then want special disposition for themselves (and their funders) when they are found wanting.

First of all, I don’t own any form of portable digital music players. I don’t care much for the music and movies that have been released in the past few years, let alone have a desire to own copies. With that out of the way I would like to rebut some of Mr. RGSmith’s arguments as I find quite a few of them disagreeable.

“But dont expect him to turn in his children to the police for downloading songs. Would you turn in yours?” - If I had kids, absolutely not! But it sounds like you are asking us to show sympathy to a guy because he has a kid… or to a kid because he has a dad. I could basically argue that we should ease off of murderers if they have parents. Now, let’s think about everyone else’s kids who are getting sued up the whazoo.

“When a song is dowloaded instead of purchased, it deprives everyone in the process of their share of the profit.” - I find this argument to be logically unsound and I’m tired of hearing it. If a song is downloaded, it does not prove the downloader would not have bought the song in the first place, nor does it prevent the person from buying the song from a music store in the future.

“If we buy a car and hit a tree with it do we expect the manufacturer to pay for the repair?” - A terrible analogy. The cost to cover a car is way more than a single copy of song. You don’t see people buying insurance policies when they buy songs do you? Since Mr. RGSmith is a writer, I’ll use books and articles as an analogy. What must you do when you copy or quote pages of books and news articles? Back in grade school, I only had to cite the source to prevent any legal action. Also, teachers would photocopy the content of these authors and illustrators over and over to pass out to the kids, and I would never hear about any lawyer knocking at their doors. Why is that? I mean, it’s happening in public schools as opposed to the privacy of a person’s bedroom.

“They may be going way overboard on the punishment of the little people who do it, but how can they not pursue a remedy to a huge abuse of their property rights?” - Now I actually do agree with this, but I trully believe there are “better” ways of going about this then suing everyone. It makes alot of money, but generates alot of bad publicity and puts them under tight scrutiny.

[...] We’re going to assume you’re well versed with the RIAA, just about the most god-forsaken industry group that ever did roam the earth (much like its unofficial partner in crime, the MPAA); and more importantly for the purposes of this post, Warner Music, one of the four major labels, which all, incidentally, back the RIAA. So what did Edgar Bronfman, CEO of Warner Music, have to say when questioned as to whether any of his seven kids pirate music? “I’m fairly certain that they have, and I’m fairly certain that they’ve suffered the consequences.” Funny, we haven’t heard about any inter-familial lawsuits involving Bronfman sr. v. Bronfman jr. concerning definitions in fair use and music piracy. In fact, given that he knows what pirates live in his house using his internet connection, it should only follow that he sue his children into eternal debt (not before having Warner Music shut off their household internet connection at the ISP level). After all, what’s good for the goose is good — ah forget it. Every time we try to apply logic and reason to the executives behind the RIAA our brains do a zero divide. [...]

I don’t know, I think Ill keep that within the family, maybe it means he just gave them a stern lecture. Knowing the record industries though, I imagined he exsanguinated them. Someone ought to get the cops to check for bodies. Record industry execs have neither soul nor morality, so it’s hardly beyond them.

OK This guy Bronfman is an easy target. But don’t expect him to turn in his children to the police for downloading songs. Would you turn in yours?

With regard to Finite’s “intellectual property,” observations, as a writer and graphic designer I expect the copyright laws to protect me from those who would use my work illegally, whether it is part of a book or a website or a recorded product. I want to be paid for the property I create. In many cases, this payment is made through a royalty based on property use. When a song is dowloaded instead of purchased, it deprives everyone in the process of their share of the profit. (By the way, how big that share may be is not the issue. Music industry percentages of the profit are negotiated with the artists and are what they are. If artists want to earn more, they can change companies, self-publish, or renegotiate.) What’s important is the ethical issue of whether it is right to cut the owners of property out of hte loop just because you can.

As for downloading to replace a damaged track on a CD If we buy a car and hit a tree with it do we expect the manufacturer to pay for the repair? In the days before digital media, if we scratched our vinyl LP did we expect to get a free replacement. Of course not. Why then should it be considered OK to download a replacement track for a damaged CD?

Lets get real. This thread is about bashing the music industry about trying to stem the flow of profits out of their pockets through illegal channels. They may be going way overboard on the punishment of the little people who do it, but how can they not pursue a remedy to a huge abuse of their property rights?

“A bright line around moral responsibility is very important.”
Is it morally responsible for the recording industry to take the largest cut from the efforts of artists?

[...] We’re going to assume you’re well versed with the RIAA, just about the most god-forsaken industry group that ever did roam the earth (much like its unofficial partner in crime, the MPAA); and more importantly for the purposes of this post, Warner Music, one of the four major labels, which all, incidentally, back the RIAA. So what did Edgar Bronfman, CEO of Warner Music, have to say when questioned as to whether any of his seven kids pirate music? “I’m fairly certain that they have, and I’m fairly certain that they’ve suffered the consequences.” Funny, we haven’t heard about any inter-familial lawsuits involving Bronfman sr. v. Bronfman jr. concerning definitions in fair use and music piracy. In fact, given that he knows what pirates live in his house using his internet connection, it should only follow that he sue his children into eternal debt (not before having Warner Music shut off their household internet connection at the ISP level). After all, what’s good for the goose is good — ah forget it. Every time we try to apply logic and reason to the executives behind the RIAA our brains do a zero divide. [...]

Record executives should be jailed for violating their customers’ civil rights with these unfounded lawsuits. (Are they even checking if users are just replacing tracks from scratched CDs they legitimately own?)

That people are allowed to equate copyright infringement with stealing, and not be called out as absurdists immediately thereafter, is the fault of the journalist. In this sad case, the journalist even does it himself! Hey, you there! Stop that!

The notion of “intellectual property” only exists to confuse people: there really is no such thing! Trademark law, patent law, and copyright law are all real (and separate) bodies of law, and violating them is no more theft than it is arson or assault.

You devalue the _actual_ concept of physical property when you apply its terminology to infinitely replicateable things like computer data files.

If he didn’t donate their college funds to his company and trample their futures, he didn’t punish them appropriately.

[...] At the Reuters’ Summit, Edgar Bronfman was asked if his kids steal music: Im fairly certain that they have, and Im fairly certain that theyve suffered the consequences. [...]