×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Warner CEO Admits His Kids Stole Music

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the do-as-i-say dept.

The Almighty Buck 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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

533 comments

All people are equal (5, Insightful)

fluch (126140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117088)

Just some people are more equal than other.

Sounds familiar.

And not surprising.

Re:All people are equal (5, Insightful)

PoloniumSandwich (1035998) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117334)

"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

Re:All people are equal (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#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).

I was in his son's class. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117544)

His son tried propositioning our teacher, and she didn't oblige. Then he "obliged" her on his son.

Meh...welcome to Real Life (4, Insightful)

StringBlade (557322) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117112)

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.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (4, Insightful)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 7 years ago | (#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?

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (1, Insightful)

CitznFish (222446) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117286)

I got drunk underaqged and nothing came of it. As do millions of other youths.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117400)

uh, thanks for sharing. you are a fountain of insight.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117524)

afaik it's only illegal to SERVE alcohol to minors (with few exceptions). I'm sure it's totally illegal to become drunk as a minor. Just how you accomplish that is a mystery...

Tom

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (1, Interesting)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117614)

Actually, drinking it may not be illegal, but being underage and possessing it will get you in trouble. Last I checked, if you're under 18 and are caught with alcohol, you have to wait until you're over 18 to get your license. And if you're under 21, you just pay a fine and spend time in jail if you're a repeat offender.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (1, Offtopic)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117676)

Thank god for a more sensible drinking age (of 19). Frankly, I'd just favour stronger moving violation penalties. Get caught speeding, suspended license for a month. Get caught drunk driving, license suspended for life, etc... None of this "oh well, he was doing 90 in a 55 but it was exam week so we'll just give you a fine and let you on your way" bullshit...

Driving != right, so get over it.

Also other offenses

Cutting people off, death. High-beams on in the city, DIAF death. Running a red, entrance in the marines.

Tom

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (2, Informative)

Daemonstar (84116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117928)

It depends on the State. In Texas it is illegal for minors to (ABC Chapter 106):

  • Purchase
  • Attempt to purchase
  • Consume (with exceptions, like in the presence of a parent or spouse that is of legal age)
  • DWI
  • Possess
  • Import
  • Misrepresent age
Also:
  • Sell to a minor
  • Purchase for/furnish to a minor
Of course there are different exceptions for different laws and circumstances (i.e.: a minor may work at a supermarket and stock alcohol-related beverages; a legal-age man can purchase alcohol with his wife who is under the drinking age limit).

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (5, Insightful)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Yes...let us ignore injustice. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117630)

Injustice breeds contempt for the law.

well..it's not like people have much respect for Copyright law anyway.

Regular people reading this story will probably be more likely to infringe, just out of spite.

Imagine if 1/4 of the adults in the USA traded copywritten music.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (5, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117648)

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.

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117654)

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."

Re:Meh...welcome to Real Life (3, Insightful)

StringBlade (557322) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117866)

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 (3, Funny)

tont0r (868535) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117122)

Hopefully I can get my dad to give me a stern talking to after I rob a bank.

Re:neat (3, Funny)

malraid (592373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117174)

As long as your father is the owner of the bank, it should be viable. Otherwise, no chance.

Re:neat (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117354)

Sorry, but in the US banks (with a k) are extremely heavily regulated, so you can't get away with this even if your father owns the bank.

Re:neat (1)

emor8t (1033068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117458)

Ah, but a bank is a corporation in a sense, no? Since when, especially lately, have American companies not "cooked the books"? and embezzled millions of dollars. And really, isn't "embezzled" just another fancy name for copy-right infringement?

Re:neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117448)

Owner of A bank apparently. These kids probably didn't only "steal" music from Warner.

Re:neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117238)

Hey, I gave my kids a very stern talk about stealing music. From now on you can be sure that they will (1) make sure they don't get caught and (2) share the good stuff with me. By good stuff, I don't mean rap.

If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (1)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117132)

They should begin an investigation into this and see if it is true. If it is they need to begin a legal case against the offender. This would send the message that the RIAA is looking for far more powerfully than chasing after someone's grandmother.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (1)

StringBlade (557322) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117188)

Chances are any "investigation" would result in no substantial evidence of infringement. After all, it said they downloaded music not uploaded it, and as I recall it's the distribution that the RIAA is mostly concerned about even though they'll say they're concerned with both.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (4, Interesting)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117196)

Actually the RIAA would do well to press charges. It would be evidence that their witch hunt is principled and not some grab for power. But then, I guess we are seeing the evidence against that.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (1)

Ahnteis (746045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117268)

Would be a great PR move -- and for THOSE children, a few thousand from daddy's pocket wouldn't hurt them at all. With any luck though, daddy is too greedy to go for it and so we won't have to worry about that perception of fairness.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117284)

Yeah, I can see this working. RIAA sues father. Father says "Oh noes. I'm in exactly the same situation now as thousands of P2P pirates who have also been threatened with lawsuits. I don't like it, but at least this proves the system works."

Then he, the CEO of Warner, reaches into his back pocket, pulls out fifty thousand dollars, peels off $3,000, and hands the $3,000 "fine" to the RIAA lawyer.

Yeah, that's going to be really convincing...

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (5, Interesting)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117482)

If you settle out of court with the RIAA you are not settling with the artist (and the settlement says that) Sooooo... the artist could still sue... which in this case would be an awesome move.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (2, Insightful)

Tebriel (192168) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117686)

Except the artist probably doesn't hold the rights to that song, or at least that performance of it.

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (1)

emor8t (1033068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117228)

Absolutely. After they go after him, they can go after Ted Turner's and Richard Branson's relatives too. Then the rest of record label exec's. Meanwhile, I'll continue my ban on going to the movie theater and buying any cd that has come out in the past 5 years. (Ok, so I don't actually do this, but maybe I should?)

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (2, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117898)

This sentiment, my friend, is exactly what you should be doing. The RIAA thinks file sharing is evil. Wait till we all start sharing our CD's amongst our friends. They absolutely cannot afford to stop us, investigate us, or prosecute us. Say you have 15 friends, and you each buy a CD, then share the cost by letting your friends 'borrow' the CD you bought. So, for the cost of blank media (say 50 cents each) and a CD (say $15) you end up getting 16 CDs for a cost of $22.50. If there are an average of 12 songs on each CD, that is a whopping 11.7 cents per song. I think we can all afford that price. Better yet???? NO DRM if you copy it right.

So now, all you need is 15 friends... viola! it works if you only have 8 or 10 friends too. Lets see the RIAA try to bust up 470,000 'file sharing rings' in North America alone! When it becomes too costly, they will stop. The Internet and P2P just made it too easy to not prosecute.

If they really want to make this music thing tough, fight back, get offline with the sharing part. Downloading stats will fall, and CD sales will fall. No municipality, state or federal agency can afford to start sniffing out little Jennifer down the street for sharing her CDs with friends.

So downloading is illegal... meh... so what! I still don't pay huge money for music!!

Re:If the RIAA actually wants to make a statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117260)

There are a great many parents that admit that their children are sharing music online. Hopefully it will soon be realized that this is of greater benefit to society than the enforcement of copyright law that is contradictory to the principle of fair use.

plea bargains (1)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117134)

I wonder if this will set the ball rolling for people to make plea bargins in exchange for "a stern talking-to" as punishment.

Let me explain... (3, Funny)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117138)

No, there's to much, let me sum up...

Life's not fair.

Re:Let me explain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117590)

No, there's to much, let me sum up...

Life's not fair.

 
That's enourmously funny cause it's exactly the phrase I have in mind when the **AA's complain i've stolen things and they have been unable to do anything about it.

Re:Let me explain... (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117646)

I agree with you. See my sig.

However, justice and fairness are two different things. The fact that his kids only get a scolding at the same time he's suing other people's kids, is most definitely unjust. The solution is easy: top suing the other people's kids.

hey **AA (1)

matt328 (916281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117144)

Yeah, I'm not doing that anymore either. Oh wait, I'm not rich and powerful so that doesn't work for me.

corporal corporate (1)

Brill (691333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117146)

"bright line" ....read: they got belted

Re:corporal corporate (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117628)

"bright line" ....read: they got belted

Why would a father punish his children for following in his footsteps? No, what they got was a lecture on "How not to get caught".

Can we seize all his computers at work and home? (5, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117156)

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?

hello?? - the guy runs a music label (2, Insightful)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117166)

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.

Re:hello?? - the guy runs a music label (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117664)

Just more evidence that a lot of people download music because its convenient.

So there's a market out there.

Downloaders not being sued (4, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117178)

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. (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117570)

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? (5, Funny)

Non-CleverNickName (1027234) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Punishment? (1)

billsoxs (637329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117300)

"I, for one, suggest that he lock his kids in the WB watertower."

Is that where they put that stupid frog?

(Of course this is off topic. So is the topic.)

Re:Punishment? (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117604)

*sigh* of course not. It's where they keep the Animaniacs.

I guess they welded it shut now.

Re:Punishment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117736)

No, it seems that the Warner brothers and the Warner sister, Dot, have escaped from the water tower yet again. Today was the dvd releases of volume 2 for both Animaniacs and Pinky and the Brain.

Re:Punishment? (1)

thebdj (768618) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117434)

How is that punishment? Chilling with the Warner Brothers and their sister Dot would ROCK!

Download vs Share (2, Insightful)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117220)

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-MAY-to, To-MAH-to (2, Interesting)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117298)

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.

Re:To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to (1)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117364)

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:To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to (2, Informative)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117518)

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 "likely" because P2P seems to be the default access point between the great unwashed and piracy. Having an account of some l33t FTP server or whatnot is less common than someone launching eDonkey or the nearest equivalent.

In other words, the odds are that the kids were uploading.

Re:To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to (1)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117680)

Odds are you're right, but since people on Slashdot claim to be more intelligent than the average person, we should stick to the facts we know and the proper terminology. I don't know how many times I've seen someone refer to illegal downloads as "stealing music" and they're jumped on by a group of users that correctly point out that it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. To the general public, those are the same thing, just as uploading and downloading are the same thing to the general public. To us, they're different because we're smart enough to know the difference.

I'm just suggesting that we avoid becoming hypocrites ourselves so we can properly explain our point of view to people when these topics come up.

Fair Enough (1)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117826)

I suppose anything else really is contributing to a further muddying of the waters. To use the paradigm of idiotsticks from the article: FUD is FUD.


PostScript: As an intelligent Slashdot reader I'd furthermore like to say, once and for all, that there were SEVENTY-NINE episodes of the original Star Trek series.

Re:Download vs Share (1)

Ahnteis (746045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117320)

They always *publicize* that people are sued for downloading, but you are correct -- they are actually sued for uploading.

He should pay up, cynically (2, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117420)

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 upload.

Re:Download vs Share (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117430)

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."

Re:Download vs Share (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117824)

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
If they have evidence you uploaded any copyrighted songs at all, you can either:
a)Settle out of court (the usual), they don't have to demand the exact ammount you owe them. They can ask for $5000000 if they want to.
b)Go to court. Spend a lot more in lawyers than you would in a generic out-of-court fee.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117236)

...despite this direct admission of guilt...

Errr, despite *what* "direct admission of guilt"? Can't submitters and editors even read the pieces they copy?

Poor Quality Slashdot Editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117266)

Downloading music is not stealing.

Text adventure style.. (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117294)

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.

<

Re:Text adventure style.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117452)

What about tying the belt around the mp3s and using it as a ballast for your children after you throw them out the 40 foot window with the "scenic" overlook of the ocean?

poor understanding of the word direct (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117310)

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).

Ah, time to stir the populist pot (2, Interesting)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117352)

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' (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117370)

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.

It's not stealing, it's just dishonest (3, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117454)

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:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117626)

Well, for one, if you don't tell them it's wrong, they're not gonna want as much money from you.

Re:It's not stealing, it's just dishonest (2, Interesting)

westyvw (653833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117660)

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 share music where bands realize this and are in agreement to allow trading.

stealing is stealing ... but (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117488)

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 stealing...

Tom

Re:stealing is stealing ... but (1)

Tankko (911999) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117728)

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

Then why is Britney Spears worth over $120M?

Re:stealing is stealing ... but (1)

IgLou (732042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117798)

Silly Rabbit, that's because Marketing is Marketing (and highly effective no the herds of mindless sheep that buy into that stuff).

Re:stealing is stealing ... but (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117838)

And for every britney spears...her labels have also payola sold millions of albums.

But that money came from other artists who got swooped up in low royalty agreements with high non-refundable NRE fees.

Tom

Aren't the Bronfmans Canadian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117498)

The Bronfman family is one of the most prominant Canadian "old-money" families around...
Did the kids "do the deed" in Canada? If so, then it is likely allowed under the personal copying exemptions in the fair dealing provisions of the Canada Copyright Act.
And saying it is Stealing is just not true.

TDz.

Lawsuits Morally Justified? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117510)

If you can't extend the moral principle that permits you to sue people for stealing music to everyone, including your own children, then it isn't a moral principle since it can't be applied generally. In other words, you shouldn't be suing strangers (or their parents) if you can't bring yourself to do the same. This is just basic moral theory.

Please pleas (1)

severdia (745423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117520)

Please don't sue me, Warner... I prrrrrrrrrrromise I won't do it anymore! Good for the goose, good for the gander. Why doesn't the Attorney General seize this opportunity???? :)

So... Since this guy is a billionare...... (3, Insightful)

8127972 (73495) | more than 7 years ago | (#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?

Please stop ripping Wired. (0, Offtopic)

thedarb (181754) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117578)

I come here to feed my need for new tech news. The same reason I read Wired. It's a little annoying when Slashdot has little news, like on weekends, the hunger for tech news growls. But when I've already read some tech news on Wired, and then find Slashdot pointing to the story a day or two later instead of giving me something new to feed on, it's even more disappointing. I get this, "Ooh! New news!" rush for a second, only to find, no... It's not new news. Slashdot is just pointing to that already old Wired story, again!

I rely on slashdot to point me to the news I won't find otherwise, not for it to spoon feed me the stuff I already found days ago on Wired. I would hazard a guess that most folks that read /. already check wired on their own. Give me something good to eat.

So... (2, Interesting)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 7 years ago | (#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!

Before lawsuits can be pressed... (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117600)

...how old are his kids? That's kinda useful to know when discussing whether or not to involve legal action.

Downloading is advertising, NOT stealing (5, Interesting)

openright (968536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117606)

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.

-1 Flamebait (1)

bidule (173941) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117670)


Wow, nice editorial! But please, wipe yourselves. You are frothing at the mouth.

Even if your job description is "being a soulless bastard bent on world domination", it doesn't mean you have to bring your job home. If you believe lawyers, carpenters, programmers and loafers should behave differently toward their children, you aren't fit to be a parent yet.

Reading most of the early comments, I am under the impression all /.ers still live in their parent basement. Get a life, go out and walk a few mile in your own shoes, pay a visit to Mr. Sun. When there's enough oxygen up there to keep your little hamster running, maybe you'll see thing differently.

Why I'not surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117690)

The Broffman familly made they fortune selling illegal stuff!

Wow (2, Funny)

MutantEnemy (545783) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117744)

"stealing music is stealing music"
"right is right"
"wrong is wrong"

This guy's just overflowing with profound truths.

Isn't copyright infringment criminal...? (1)

TheRealStyro (233246) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117754)

Interesting. I thought the US just made copyright infringement a criminal action punishable by law. If that is the case and the actions occurred in the US then the FBI and/or local law enforcement must investigate this alleged criminal action. If the FBI and/or local law enforcement chooses not to investigate this allegation of a criminal action then the FBI and/or all local law enforcement cannot investigate any copyright 'crimes' (in particular those being reported to the FBI and/or law enforcement). Fairness under law or no law - enforce the law fairly or not at all.

Yes, They Have (2, Informative)

waldoj (8229) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117758)

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. :)

All men... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117886)

are created equal. Unless you are black, hispanic, jewish, catholic, asian, short, fat, female, poor, or are NOT a CEO's child.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...