# Recording Industry takes action against 12 year old girl, forces settlement **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 10, 2003, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697 "2003-09-10T05:40:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/401 "2003-09-29T02:57:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cheesesteak \* > \*\*Sex with consent is sex. Sex without consent is rape. One is perfectly acceptable, the other is a crime. > > The publishers willingly sell to the library knowing exactly what the deal is. Publishers do not allow their works to be distributed for free over file sharing programs. The library has the full consent of the copyright owner, Kazaa does not. \*\* But your reply to **Estilicon** dealt only with how much he has paid to read the books: > [@](#): > > That guy trying to eek out a living, writing average material, isn’t going to get a penny from you, you’ll read his book online and pass it up if you see it in a store. You don’t mention permission, you mention profit. The publishers may have made an exemption for libraries, but my question is still the same. How is reading a book online different than reading a book from the library? Sex with someone without their consent is obvious harm to that person. I don’t think that is an apt analogy for this situation. Is the important part that **Estilicon** didn’t pay for the book, or is the important part that he didn’t have the consent of the author to read it? Julie ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/402 "2003-09-29T03:40:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > I’ve already answered. Where? I believe I asked you something about whether you’d _like_ that. > [@](#): > > If noncommercial copying became legal, and some artists chose not to release their works, the benefits of a looser copyright law would outweigh that loss. How? If noncommercial copying became mainstream and legal, a lot of artists could possibly lose profits, be forced out of the business, (or go to part time) and a lot of them would be disgusted with the whole situation and that would defnitely affect how they presented their work and did their business. NO ONE would be exempt from having their work “noncommercially copied” and distributed, hither and yon. Perhaps you don’t see any potential loss in income for these artists, but I sure as hell do. > [@](#): > > Distribute it, yes; sell it, no. Oh, that’s completely unacceptable. Oh sure, the shops could all sign “agreements” to not distribute the works, but all you need is one rogue employee, and the genie is out of the bottle, never to go back in again. And how do you think these shops will handle this? Enormous insurance coverage, to protect them from lawsuits that crop up from “leaked” work of their customers? And how would the courts determine the “value” of a leaked, unpublished work of an unknown artist or author, for instance? Perhaps that work was deeply private and the artist didn’t want their personal feelings revealed. How can a court decide “damages” on that kind of thing, and how could any small framing shop, for instance, afford insurance to cover the possibility of lawsuits? Sure, they could punish the employee who “leaked” the work, but you can’t get money from a dry well. And in the case of film being processed, for instance, it could be _years_ before the artist even knew their photos were swiped, and by that time the culprits are out of business or elsewhere. It’s an absurd notion. Having to always keep track of each and every person who had access to the work, trying to “prove” that a photo lab swiped the work, when in fact it could have been a dishonest friend or relative—how could they “prove” something so definitively, years after the fact, especially if the work was anonymously distributed on the Internet? Forget it. It is way too convoluted. > [@](#): > > I may be wrong, but I believe it’s already illegal to misattribute a work to an artist who didn’t create it. They wouldn’t have to misattribute the work to the original author. They could just not correct any assumptions. Speaking for myself, I don’t necessarily pay attention to who the director or editor is on a film, and if a version of a film said, “Directed by George Lucas and modified by Joe Blow,” I might easily miss it. I daresay a lot of people would. > [@](#): > > Perhaps his terms for selling it are unreasonable. Just because no one wants to buy a painting of dogs playing poker for $500 doesn’t mean no one would buy it for $10, and if the artist refused to lower his price for decades, he could certainly go that long without making a sale. Hey, I’ve gone for a long time without selling certain works, (not 20 years, but it seemed a long time to me) because I hadn’t found the right “audience” for that kind of work. I’ve had works neglected and ignored in one type of show, only to be treated like the Belle at the Ball at another show. I wasn’t “overpricing” my art, it just took me a while to find the right market. Now, I doubt it’s common to take 20 years to find the right audience, but even a 3, 5, or 10 year lag means that much less time to make money off of the work. > [@](#): > > Why should it be held out of the public domain just because it’s shit? My question is, how bady is society being damaged by being denied access to shit? I don’t think that those eccentric collectors of the absurd and shitty would not claim that less shit in the world has severely “damaged” society, no matter how much _they_ enjoy it. > [@](#): > > How can one tell the difference between artists who are “ahead of their time” and artists who are just no good at making and/or selling art? How can you, indeed? So rather than letting those who want to hang onto their shit longer, while simultaniously allowing those who are “ahead of their time” opportunity to profit off of their innovative work, you would prefer that the shit-collectors get plenty more stuff to collect, and the ahead-of-their-time artists sit back and get very little reward for their remarkable works. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/403 "2003-09-29T08:12:45Z")
Oops! I missed this earlier. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > But I seriously doubt that a material number of artists would refuse to release his or her work on those grounds. I just stated that I would. I can be quite prolific (I draw very fast), and I’ve got a lot of Life Drawings that were done in 20 minutes or so. But I think they’re nice, and other people think they’re nice. But I never would want to see them used in anything related to pornography. Bottom line. I’d prefer to release them to the public, of course, but if I didn’t, it wouldn’t be that much of a sacrifice—I’ve got plenty of other works out there as well. I can’t believe that I’d be the only one who’d cherry-pick through my work and said to myelf, “I saw what some [pornographer/Wayne Newton fan/Star Trek Fan] did with my friend Sophie’s drawings, so forget it. I can just show these other ream of drawings instead.” You don’t _believe_ that artists would do this? Well, based on my own feelings, and the sentiments of my peers, I think you’re wrong. I also seriously doubt that you are psychic and know how a vast portion of artists would react to seeing their work in the public domain while they are still as young as late 30s. That’s a lot of life left, and every year, more and more of their work would be in the public domain. I don’t think they’d react to that favorably. > [@](#): > > This is a relatively new area of the law. It is comprised of two things: a right of attribution ( the right to claim and disclaim authorship) and the right of integrity (the right to require that art remain unmolested). I have no problem with the former: a person should be given credit for their work even after the passing of copyright protection. The latter is bullshit. If I buy a copy of your print, including the payment of your royalty, I should have the right to do with it what I will, even if you personally don’t like it. I personally don’t care so much if someone uses my art as bird cage lining as long as they pay me, but obviously someone came up with the idea for this law, and I doubt they came up with this law without the encouragement of a lot of artists. The law in Europe is more strict and thorough than in the US (check out _France’s_ version—yikes!) but it exists, and obviously exists for a reason. So, doesn’t that tell you something about the sentiments in artists’ heads? Some of them apparently are even _more_ sensitive than me (because I don’t mind if someone uses my art for birdcage liner). However, I am sure most artists could agree on one point—bird cage liner or painting moustaches on the faces, whatever—I sure as hell wouldn’t want them to _publish_ the work after they’d done that to it. And fortunately, because of current copyright laws, they can’t. But even seperate of copyright laws, laws such as these “moral rights” laws (especially the laws over in Europe) clearly confirm the sentiment that it’s not OK to mess with the “integrity” of a creative work. Once again, these sentiments didn’t come from a vacuum. I suspect that a significant number of artists encouraged the creation of such laws. > [@](#): > > If the work is work has value, people will be willing to pay money to publish it, even if it is in the public domain. You might have to hone your negotiation skills a bit, but sitting on such an untapped reservoir of literary value could certainly garner a good chunk of cash. Give me a break. How could someone _possibly_ negotiate a decent price for an unknown’s work, before that unknown’s work has generated any attention or has even been published? On what basis could a person demand a decent price for such works? Hope? Confidence? A crystal ball? That’s rarely how these negotiations work. I’ve negotiated prices on my work and trust me, no matter how damned good your work is, if you are an “unknown,” they don’t want to pay you as much as a “known” artist. I’ve dealt with this personally. _That’s how it is._ ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/404 "2003-09-29T09:12:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*If you overcharge, and act like a frigid ice queen in regards to your work, yes, you are a whore. The attitude you have with regards to your work is how I distinguish artists from art whores, same way I distinguish sex workers from sex whores. > > If I give someone 200 dollars for a blowjob, they shouldn’t act disgusted and begrudging every second of their service. > > If I give you 200 dollars to paint for me, you shouldn’t act disgusted that I’m not giving you more, and demand that you have control over making copies of the painting until 70 years after you are dead. > > In regards to my whores versus artists analogy, you are the Aileen Wournos of artists. Just like Aileen was an ugly middle aged prostitute who was paranoid that every man was out to rape her and severely overreacted to her mostly unfounded fears, you are paranoid that everyone wants to “leech” from your art. \*\* But you still haven’t answered the basic fundamental question, namely is it OK according to you to rape whores? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/405 "2003-09-29T09:16:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cheesesteak \* > \*\*Wow, Estilicon, you mean that you actually BOUGHT one book? I’m stunned! I’m sure the respective publishers and authors are delighted that you’ve read dozens of their works and actually paid for ONE. > > If you don’t mind my asking, was the library selling any OTHER books that you had already read online? You know, ones that you maybe didn’t think were ‘magnificent’? Would you have bought one of those? Yeah, I can see it now, Estilicon sees a book he’s read already, one he thought was decidedly average and decides to buy a fresh copy, just because it’s the right thing to do. > > That guy trying to eek out a living, writing average material, isn’t going to get a penny from you, you’ll read his book online and pass it up if you see it in a store. \*\* It’s a matter of consent, Estilicon. Your basic argument is that by allowing file sharing as a marketing tool, artists may sell more not less of their work. Fine, if that’s the business model they choose to adopt, good luck to those artists. But if a particular artist makes a choice that it is not going to adopt that method of marketing, and wants to be paid for every copy of their work sold, then who are you to just leach their work anyway? And as has already been pointed out to you, the fact that you have leached many works but bought only one would give me no confidence (were I an artist) that the file-sharing-as-marketing ploy works anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/406 "2003-09-29T09:17:57Z")
Ah, shit sorry, quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote this: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Estilicon \* > \*\*For all of those that are against filesharing, explain the following to me. > I am book worm, a library rat, a geek, a nerd, use your favourite term, I just LOVE reading. I have hundreds of books of all kind. Lately and in a large part due to the SDMB, I’ve started reading Sci-Fi and Fantasy, two genres that I neglected till a couple o years ago. > My problem is that in Argentina (see my location) book of those genres have the same prestige as pornography… and are not as easy to get. Result? The only way I can read even the “classics” is downloading them. So I use filesharing programs only to download e-books. Yes, it is not the same, it is really disgusting to read great books in crappy computers but as I said it is the only way I can read them. > Last wednesday I was on a holiday ( on the 24 of September we conmemorate the Battle of Tucuman), so I went to the library. To my surprise they were selling “A canticle for Leibwonitz”, Instantly I took out my wallet and bought it. > Now Estilicon is one of the select millions who owns that great book (with wich I was first introduced in Cafe Society). > Conclussion, people that download something that they like will usually buy it, also if it weren’t for filesharing I would never, not in a million years, heard about that book, it’s author, etc. If it weren’t for filesharing I wouldn’t have invested my hard earned pesos in that magnificent piece of literature. > So all those of you that are against filesharing: blow me. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/407 "2003-09-29T09:43:26Z")
Money and copyright are intertwined because copyright is an idea designed to help artists make money from their art. Violate copyright and you, almost by definition, harm the artists ability to make a living at their art. I’d say the most important part is that he didn’t have consent, but that is closely tied with paying since that’s how he would normally get consent. When you go to the library, you get consent a different way. If the writer gave you a copy of the book, you have consent in yet another way. It is the artists copyright to do with what they will. If it was a good idea, economically, for the publisher to make books available for free online, they probably would. It’s not our place to make that decision for them, it is not our copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/408 "2003-09-29T13:32:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*No, I don’t know where you pulled that from. I never said anything about accidental infringement vs. deliberate infringement. Whether it’s accidental or deliberate, the end result is that I’m prohibited from sharing certain information just because someone else has already done it. \*\* OK, I see. So if you are prohibited from copying a commercially available thing and giving it to a friend, that is an infringement of your expressiveness, to use your term. The real issue then: is this a reasonable restraint upon you, given its effects upon the rights of the copyright holder? Which is the substance of this debate. So, let’s get on to that: > [@](#): > > **Immoral, because you’re depriving the store owner of his right to exclusive use of those items - a moral right that doesn’t apply to intellectual property. Even if you leave him enough cash to replace the items you took, he’ll still have to spend his own time replacing them, and he won’t be able to use the items for the time being.** Obtusely nitpicking at analogies so as to avoid having to deal with their substance does your credibility as a debater no good, Mr2001. Take it that I leave enough cash to cover every marginal or potential cost so that the store owner is not inconvenienced: all he misses out on is his profit. And all his other customers do what I do. And the hardware store owner inevitably goes broke. Moral or immoral? Don’t nitpick, answer the substance, even if it hurts. If you can. > [@](#): > > \*\*Now, if you want an analogy that makes sense, suppose you sneak into the hardware store, take a hammer and some paint, and leave an identical hammer and paint bucket on the shelves. Moral? Yes. (Except for breaking into the store.) \*\* Where do I get the identical hammer and paint bucket from? All this is doing is putting the moral question off. > [@](#): > > \*\*Of course it would, unless the passengers had another reason to support the fee-charging bus line. Why would someone think he could make money charging for access to a bus, when another bus gives free identical rides on the same route? He’d have to improve the quality of his own buses to justify the price, or find another way to fund the bus line. \*\* Interesting. Earlier, I suggested that an opportunity that allows people to get commercially sold music for nothing damages CD sales and you snorted derisively and said: “Cite?” But when it comes to buses you say “Of course it would”. You have some cognitive dissonance to deal with, my boy. > [@](#): > > \*\*Artists don’t write their own bad reviews, and you can’t please everyone. A band could put out the Best Album Ever, and there would still be some critics who don’t like it, who may be influential enough to harm their sales. \*\* You’re just filibustering. Either abusing other people’s copyright is immoral or it isn’t. Whether other people do other things that damage potential sales is a whole other question. > [@](#): > > \*\*Oh please. First you claim that copyright law only makes commercial copying illegal, now you’re trying to claim… what? \*\* No, never said that. Earlier, you said: > [@](#): > > The censorship is that I can’t say, write, or play certain sequences of words or notes simply because someone else has already said, written, or played them before. And I pointed out that you were quite free to do this as long as you didn’t do it for commercial gain. Expanding this out to pretend that I meant that copying and distributing was not an infringment of copyright is just something you are attributing to me so that you can knock down the strawman. \*\* > [@](#): > > That there’s some parallel between taking something from a hardware store, thus denying the owner the use of his property and making him go out of his way to replace it, and duplicating a song without putting anyone out? \*\* As to the hardware store thing, see above. When you deal with the substance of my analogy, instead of nitpicking, we can deal further. As to “without putting anyone out?”, if I had a reasonable chance of selling something to 10 people, but the first person to buy it just copied it to the 9 others against my express wishes, I’d be pretty damn put out, let me tell you. \*\* > [@](#): > > Just the other day I “stole” someone’s opportunity to drink the last cup of water in the cooler at work. Is that immoral? \*\* That someone had no right to the water (or no more than you). They weren’t the owner of it, they didn’t invent it. Try using a realistic example, or is the whole issue of lost opportunity cost just too hard to deal with? Are you unable to grasp the concept of copyright infringement diminishing the opportunity to the copyright holder, or do you just not like talking about it? Given your vacuous example above, I think probably the latter. \*\* > [@](#): > > BTW, you ought to know by now that it’s impossible to “take” someone’s intellectual property. \*\* One day, you may actually win a debate by vigorously asserting the proposition under debate. Today is not that day. Tomorrow is not looking too good either. \*\* > [@](#): > > Incorrect. The owners of the concert venue are entitled to decide who can be in the arena and who cannot. \*\* Well now, that’s interesting. “Entitled”. Do you mean morally or legally? Presumably the former, given that (as you pointed out) the legal question is beyond doubt, and would be merely a matter for GQ. So why is the venue owner morally entitled to decide who can be in the arena? How does it put him out if extra people sneak in? By sneaking in, you would say that they are not “taking” anything, the venue already existed. Indeed, it seems to me that in your moral universe, it is (as you would be quick to assert vigorously if we were discussing copyright owners instead of venue owners) pretty much “impossible” to take anything away from venue owners, except perhaps the opportunity to sell tickets, and we all know how little regard you have for opportunity cost. So why is the venue owner morally entitled to decide who can be in the arena? > [@](#): > > \*\* Seating (and oxygen) in a venue is a scarce resource; the music played at the concert is not. \*\* But anyhow, getting back to my original point, once again, you nitpick to avoid dealing with the substance. Let’s assume the hall was not going to be full. The point is not the moral or legal relationship between the fraudulent concertgoers and the venue. The point is that the band is not going to make any money. > [@](#): > > \*\*(Of course, the venue owners shouldn’t be selling tickets that are easy to counterfeit. There are many cost-effective ways to detect counterfeit tickets; in fact, document security is my line of work. With a laser printer and a $500 machine, you can be sure the ticket you accept at the gate is one of the same tickets you sold earlier.) \*\* and \*\* > [@](#): > > Why was there no contract or NDA preventing the recipients from doing just that? You’d think a band would think ahead. \*\* Interesting. It seems to me that at the crux of your position is a view that morality depends essentially on what consumers can get away with, and what artists can prevent. If you can get away with ripping off people’s music, that is moral. If a musician _could_ do something to avoid you ripping them off, but they don’t, then it is moral to rip them off. Sort of a jungle morality. If the girl went down a dark alley, raping her is OK because it’s her fault she didn’t have anyone to protect her. Fair summary? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/409 "2003-09-29T14:11:45Z")
Obviously, we’re starting to just go round and round repeating the same thing, so I’ll limit my comment to this: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > \*\*Give me a break. How could someone _possibly_ negotiate a decent price for an unknown’s work, before that unknown’s work has generated any attention or has even been published? \*\* Obviously, you restrict access to it – only allow the viewing of the piece, without the benefit of copy machines, cameras, or other methods of reproducing it. Possibly you get prospective purchasers to sign something similar to a NDA. Such processes are not unknown in the business world, and are used fairly regularly to protect sellers courting buyers for property that is easily reproducible, yet for whatever reason falls outside of copyright/trademark/patent protections. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/410 "2003-09-29T18:18:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Dewey Cheaten Undhow wrote: > > Obviously, you restrict access to it – only allow the viewing of the piece, without the benefit of copy machines, cameras, or other methods of reproducing it. Possibly you get prospective purchasers to sign something similar to a NDA. Such processes are not unknown in the business world, and are used fairly regularly to protect sellers courting buyers for property that is easily reproducible, yet for whatever reason falls outside of copyright/trademark/patent protections. You’re missing the point. Restricting access to the photos isn’t going to change the fact that the artist was an unpublished _unknown._ I’ve had some experience with this personally, and I’m just telling you—no one is going to pay a decent price for an unknown’s work. Only if the work were _so_ unique and _so_ extraordinary might they pay something remotely close to what it would end up being worth in the long run. For everything else, (no matter how lovely and fabulous the works are), the negotiations are going to be, “Why should we pay _that_ much for an unpublished unknown’s work?” And the negotiations will get stuck, right there on that point, until the seller settles for a “modest fee,” or the deal is called off. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/411 "2003-09-29T21:02:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jsgoddess \* > **How is reading a book online different than reading a book from the library?** In one scenario the book company and author are compensated, in the other, they are not. **Yosemite** , you should be in an Energizer commercial. You have my utmost respect for your tenacity. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/412 "2003-09-29T21:43:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by World Eater \* > **In one scenario the book company and author are compensated, in the other, they are not.** But when you buy a CD, the author usually is not compensated. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/413 "2003-09-29T22:03:39Z")
Word Eater: Thanks. Also, I can type pretty fast. (I think around 90+ wpm when I’m on a roll.) That really helps. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/414 "2003-09-29T23:01:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aryk29 \* > \*\*But when you buy a CD, the author usually is not compensated. \*\* Why is that? Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/415 "2003-09-29T23:19:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > (I think around 90+ wpm when I’m on a roll.) I think in russian whenever possible. No articles y’see, so it’s faster. Of course, I don’t speak russian which drags the old average down somewhat. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/416 "2003-09-29T23:50:13Z")
See, when I type fast and don’t drink enough Pepsi, these ol’ typos crop up. 😉 I sometimes dream in watercolor (no lie) so make of that what you will… ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/417 "2003-09-30T00:28:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Princhester_ > \*\*Obtusely nitpicking at analogies so as to avoid having to deal with their substance does your credibility as a debater no good, Mr2001. > > Take it that I leave enough cash to cover every marginal or potential cost so that the store owner is not inconvenienced: all he misses out on is his profit. > > And all his other customers do what I do. And the hardware store owner inevitably goes broke. > > Moral or immoral?\*\* Immoral again, because you’re taking his time and expecting him to accept cash in exchange. You don’t know what value he places on his own time unless you’ve made an agreement with him, and he’s agreed that he’ll waste X minutes of his time replacing the tools you took if you pay him Y dollars - in which case it would be moral. That, my friend, is the substance of your analogy. The very thing that makes your hardware store different from file sharing–the fact that the store owner does _not_ have the same things after you left as he did when you came in–is what makes one immoral and the other moral. > [@](#): > > **Where do I get the identical hammer and paint bucket from?** Beats me. Maybe you have some kind of 1980’s style “cloning ray” which allows you to duplicate the items, take the originals, and leave an identical copy on the shelf. Maybe you live in the Matrix and you can just copy hammers like a Kazaa user copies songs. You’re trying to draw a parallel to file sharing, right? > [@](#): > > \*\*Interesting. Earlier, I suggested that an opportunity that allows people to get commercially sold music for nothing damages CD sales and you snorted derisively and said: “Cite?” > > But when it comes to buses you say “Of course it would”.\*\* The astute reader will not that buses are not the same as music. A CD is not the same as an MP3, and there are various reasons to choose a CD instead of or in addition to an MP3; while rides of the same quality on identical bus routes are, for the riders’ purposes, identical. Notice that I said “unless the passengers had another reason to support the fee-charging bus line”, which may not apply to buses in this case, but it does apply to CDs. Of course, the actual real-world evidence doesn’t support the theory that file sharing harms music sales. Even if I agree that there’s no reason for someone to pay for a bus ticket instead of getting a free ride… even if, purely for the sake of argument, I were to agree that there’s no reason for anyone to buy a CD when he could get an MP3 for free… the evidence doesn’t change. The Earth has always been round no matter how many people have thought otherwise, and people still buy music no matter how many times you claim they don’t. > [@](#): > > **No, never said that.** Denying your own words already? How pathetic. Let’s see… from page 7 (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Mr2001: “I’m not at all opposed to a hypothetical “copyright” law that **only gives the author a monopoly on profiting from his work** , but I simply can’t agree with giving anyone a monopoly on writing a certain sequence of words, painting a certain sequence of colors, playing a certain sequence of notes, etc. That’s censorship.” > > Princhester: “Agreed. But since **copyright doesn’t give anything more** than what you are not opposed to, what is your point? Other than showing off your own ignorance?” If copyright doesn’t give anything more than a monopoly on profiting, then it’s legal for anyone else to copy the work, as long as they don’t make a profit from it. A monopoly on profiting from a song is not a guarantee that people will _buy_ the song. > [@](#): > > **As to “without putting anyone out?”, if I had a reasonable chance of selling something to 10 people, but the first person to buy it just copied it to the 9 others against my express wishes, I’d be pretty damn put out, let me tell you.** Sorry, you don’t have a right to have customers. I’m referring to actual harm to the seller - losing something they had, or having to replace something they lost - not the falling through of plans to get rich. A dollar you _hope_ to earn is a dollar you _haven’t_ earned. > [@](#): > > \*\*Are you unable to grasp the concept of copyright infringement diminishing the opportunity to the copyright holder, or do you just not like talking about it? \*\* I grasp it perfectly well, thank you. I just don’t care. No one has a right to seize every opportunity first, no one has a right to have customers who want to buy your product, and no one has a right to make a buck. If you’re trying to make a living at something unprofitable, get a new job; don’t lobby the government to make it profitable by outlawing competition. > [@](#): > > **One day, you may actually win a debate by vigorously asserting the proposition under debate. Today is not that day. Tomorrow is not looking too good either.** OK, then go ahead and explain how you can “take” a song from me that I wrote, so that you have a song and I have none. This thread could use some humor. > [@](#): > > **So why is the venue owner morally entitled to decide who can be in the arena? How does it put him out if extra people sneak in? By sneaking in, you would say that they are not “taking” anything, the venue already existed.** They’re taking away the venue owner’s choice of how to use his scarce resource. Perhaps he wanted to fill the empty seats with friends and family, or send some orphans to their first rock show. Or maybe he just likes looking at empty seats. The point is, since seats are physical property, either someone’s in the seat or they aren’t - the seat can’t be empty and full at the same time, nor can two customers use the same seat (without interfering with each other). Even if the owner had no plans for using the seats, he retains the right to use them for any purpose at any time, and since he can’t use a seat while someone else is using it, that implies being able to choose who can use it at any given time. > [@](#): > > **Let’s assume the hall was not going to be full. The point is not the moral or legal relationship between the fraudulent concertgoers and the venue. The point is that the band is not going to make any money.** Well, if all you care about is the band making money, why bring fake tickets into the picture? Why not just ask if it’s moral for people to stand out on the sidewalk and listen to the show for free, instead of paying for a ticket? I think you’d answer that question differently - I sure did. The venue has a right to keep people out, but the band doesn’t have a right to get paid by everyone who hears them play. > [@](#): > > \*\* It seems to me that at the crux of your position is a view that morality depends essentially on what consumers can get away with, and what artists can prevent. If you can get away with ripping off people’s music, that is moral. If a musician could do something to avoid you ripping them off, but they don’t, then it is moral to rip them off. \*\* Nah. Noncommercial copying is moral no matter how risky or easy it is. It isn’t any less moral to copy a copy-protected CD; it’s just harder. If you believe (as I do) that fraud is immoral, then it’s immoral to use a counterfeit ticket even if the venue doesn’t employ any counterfeit prevention measures - but if they don’t even try to prevent counterfeits, they’re idiots and it’s harder to feel sorry for them. For the same reason, it’s immoral for a company to lead an artist to believe that they’ll pay him for the use of his song, then turn around and use it without paying him. It’s not immoral because they’re copying his song against his will, but because they’re defrauding him. > [@](#): > > **Fair summary?** Of course not, but then, you knew that. It’s fun and easy to knock down strawmen, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by yosemitebabe_ > **Where? I believe I asked you something about whether you’d like that.** And now you’re asking if I “prefer” it. What a difference. Next you’ll ask if I would “enjoy” it or “want” it or be “happy” about it. > [@](#): > > **How? If noncommercial copying became mainstream and legal, a lot of artists could possibly lose profits, be forced out of the business, (or go to part time) and a lot of them would be disgusted with the whole situation and that would defnitely affect how they presented their work and did their business. NO ONE would be exempt from having their work “noncommercially copied” and distributed, hither and yon. Perhaps you don’t see any potential loss in income for these artists, but I sure as hell do.** You didn’t ask me if I thought some artists would lose income, you asked if I would > [@](#): > > mind at all if new creative works were limited, the artists “held back,” and in some cases, decided that they couldn’t afford to continue creating stuff I think the benefit _to society_ (as consumers and creators of derivative works, not as people trying to sell access to information) of looser copyright laws would outweigh society’s loss of any works those artists might otherwise have sold. > [@](#): > > **Oh sure, the shops could all sign “agreements” to not distribute the works, but all you need is one rogue employee, and the genie is out of the bottle, never to go back in again.** Then you call Lionel Hutz and take Kinko’s to the cleaners. > [@](#): > > **And how do you think these shops will handle this? Enormous insurance coverage, to protect them from lawsuits that crop up from “leaked” work of their customers?** Of course. Do you think a business like Kinko’s, that makes money by making copies, doesn’t already have some protection against copyright infringement suits? > [@](#): > > **And how would the courts determine the “value” of a leaked, unpublished work of an unknown artist or author, for instance? Perhaps that work was deeply private and the artist didn’t want their personal feelings revealed. How can a court decide “damages” on that kind of thing,** It should be specified in the contract. I imagine it would be based on the profit that could have been made if all those copies were sold, but that’s something for the parties to work out themselves. > [@](#): > > \*\*and how could any small framing shop, for instance, afford insurance to cover the possibility of lawsuits? \*\* A business that doesn’t take into account the possibility of a lawsuit is a business doomed to fail. They’d afford it the same way they afford any type of insurance: by including it in their prices and taking steps to show their insurer they aren’t much of a risk. > [@](#): > > \*\* Having to always keep track of each and every person who had access to the work, trying to “prove” that a photo lab swiped the work, when in fact it could have been a dishonest friend or relative—how could they “prove” something so definitively, years after the fact, especially if the work was anonymously distributed on the Internet? > > Forget it. It is way too convoluted.\*\* No more convoluted than trying to prove whether an MP3 is legitimate or not. Law is complicated, that’s why lawyers make money. > [@](#): > > \*\*They wouldn’t have to misattribute the work to the original author. They could just not correct any assumptions. Speaking for myself, I don’t necessarily pay attention to who the director or editor is on a film, and if a version of a film said, “Directed by George Lucas and modified by Joe Blow,” I might easily miss it. I daresay a lot of people would. \*\* Then a lot of people are idiots. There’s nothing wrong with writing “Directed by George Lucas and modified by Joe Blow”; it is, in fact, the honest truth, and if people ignore the “modified by Joe Blow” part then they’re just lazy. Of course, it’s possible to present the honest truth in a dishonest way, in order to mislead the buyer into thinking the film was actually approved by George Lucas, and that would be something for the courts to decide in a particular case. > [@](#): > > **So rather than letting those who want to hang onto their shit longer, while simultaniously allowing those who are “ahead of their time” opportunity to profit off of their innovative work, you would prefer that the shit-collectors get plenty more stuff to collect, and the ahead-of-their-time artists sit back and get very little reward for their remarkable works.** If they get little reward because people don’t like their work, what do you expect? Why should people buy something they don’t like? I agree with **Dewey** that it isn’t unreasonable to expect artists to make something that will actually be useful in the near future, in exchange for whatever limited monopolies we grant them, rather than granting them monopolies reaching far into the future just because their work might _someday_ have an audience. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/418 "2003-09-30T01:18:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > And now you’re asking if I “prefer” it. What a difference. Next you’ll ask if I would “enjoy” it or “want” it or be “happy” about it. No answer. Just what I expected. > [@](#): > > You didn’t ask me if I thought some artists would lose income, you asked if I would I think the benefit _to society_ (as consumers and creators of derivative works, not as people trying to sell access to information) of looser copyright laws would outweigh society’s loss of any works those artists might otherwise have sold. Let’s cut the crap. Society loses out if artists are too broke to work full time on their art because they can’t afford to. Less art will be produced. These things are all connected. > [@](#): > > Of course. Do you think a business like Kinko’s, that makes money by making copies, doesn’t already have some protection against copyright infringement suits? Let’s cut the crap on this one too. This idea that you have, that anyone who casts eyes on a work and somehow manages to get a copy made, that they should be legally allowed to “share” this copy, well, this is utter and complete **bullshit.** Think about it. Someone’s laptop is stolen, and it has their unfinished memoirs, some digital artwork they never intended to release to the public, Quicktime video of them having sex with their wife—whatever. And it’s on this laptop, and now the laptop is stolen and who knows who the hell has it and yeah, it’s pretty easy to get all that content up on the web. And once it’s up there, it can be **legally** and freely “shared,” right? No way to stop it. It’s all **legal** , as long as no profit is made. Or, some shithead kid secretly scans private writings or artwork (or video) of their parents, uploads it, and that’s it. Or a thief steals a computer and uploads all its contents to the Internet, or someone’s packing box with lots of journals, sketchbooks or video is lost in transit, and on and on. No way would this remotely work, not without everyone having to treat every bit of even remotely private information about themselves like it was top secret and subject to be “leaked” at any moment. Give it up. This ain’t gonna work, no way, no how. > [@](#): > > Then a lot of people are idiots. There’s nothing wrong with writing “Directed by George Lucas and modified by Joe Blow”; it is, in fact, the honest truth, and if people ignore the “modified by Joe Blow” part then they’re just lazy. It still damages the artists’ reputation, and yes, as usual, your typical solution is to get the courts involved in trying to decide what sort of labeling in such a “modified” movie was really _clear_ enough, even to get through to the inattentive dummies. > [@](#): > > If they get little reward because people don’t like their work, what do you expect? Why should people buy something they don’t like? Not paying attention again, I see. Their work is “remarkable,” which means it does get attention (eventually) and _does_ make plenty of money (eventually). But just not soon enough for the artist to benefit. Copyright runs out, too sad, too bad. The artist looks on as everyone suddenly “discovers” their work and just _loves_ it. (But too late for the artist to be compensated for their work.) > [@](#): > > I agree with **Dewey** that it isn’t unreasonable to expect artists to make something that will actually be useful in the near future, in exchange for whatever limited monopolies we grant them, rather than granting them monopolies reaching far into the future just because their work might _someday_ have an audience. We’re going around with this again. If there is no audience, then society is not losing out by it not being in public domain. NO AUDIENCE, remember? (Except for the crap collectors, who, to be honest, I’m not overly concerned about.) If their work does end up having an audience, why, golly gee, I think they are entitled to benefit from that, even if it takes a little longer. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/419 "2003-09-30T06:16:21Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by Princhester \* \*\*quote: > > ## \*Originally posted by aryk29 \* But when you buy a CD, the author usually is not compensated. > > Why is that? Cite? \*\* Cite what? Go back and read this thread! There’s 11 fucking pages of cite right under your nose. I’ll even repost the [Janis Ian](http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html) cite in case you’re too damn lazy to scroll 1/3 of the way down page 4 and find it yourself. Cite indeed. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/420 "2003-09-30T06:22:00Z")
While I’m at it, I’ll even quote that cite, _in the words of Janis Ian herself:_ > [@](#): > > One other major point: in the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful - exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love. Again, from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I’ve created 25+ albums for major labels, and I’ve never once received a royalty check that didn’t show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show. I spend hours each week doing press, writing articles, making sure my website tour information is up to date. Why? Because all of that gives me exposure to an audience that might not come otherwise. So when someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they’d downloaded a song and gotten curious, I am thrilled! > > Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697.md?page=22)