# 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:** 23
**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:** [October 2, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/441 "2003-10-02T00:38:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **Those of us who pay attention realize that even if noncommercial copying were legal, there would still be ways to obtain copies illegally (in this case, breaking a contract), which is what I was referring to.** I just found the statement amusing, especially coming from you. \*\* > [@](#): > > Yes, you’re very observant. Murder and genocide are both immoral; eavesdropping from the sidewalk and eavesdropping over the internet are both moral. The difference in scale doesn’t affect the morality of the act. I think you’re finally catching on! \*\* Wow, you must be completely fucking braindead. The scale _is_ the difference. The scale _is_ the problem! A few years ago, of friend of mine was working in a recording studio. The Wu-tang Clan was recording at the time, and actually managed to leave the final master of their new album on the coffee table or something. Now in the old days, he could have made a few copies for people, and perhaps those people would make a few copies. Not a big problem since the sound would have degraded with each copy generation, and the people would have to _physically_ interact with their friends to give them copies, Wu-Tang shouldn’t worry. Today, he could have uploaded the tracks and _identical_ first generation recordings would have virally worked their way world-wide in a matter of of hours. Luckily my friend didn’t copy anything and tracked them back down in a few days, but all too often some little studio shit will leak an album on the net weeks before it is to be released. To recap. Copy a tape in 20 minutes that will yield a shitty copy if copied, and distribute it to a small circle of people _who know_ each other? Why should a label care? Instantaneously distribute identical recordings globally to _MILLIONS_ of people? The label should care. Now you can get into ethics and split hairs as much as you want, that’s fine, but if you can’t recognize why a company would possibly be worried, you are beyond hope. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/442 "2003-10-02T01:20:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > It would be just as easy to enforce as copyright law is today, for better or worse. Your spin is amazing. “Just as easy to enforce!” La-de-dah. Just fling that shit to the wall and hope it sticks. The way copyright laws are now, people always _know_ when they “share” someone’s else’s content (especially online) that it is very likely illegal. What you propose is that everything be _legal_ to share (non-commercially). If something is shared “illegally,” it’ll be on the victim to _prove_ that it was illegally obtained. Which will be usually be virtually impossible, unless they had everyone sign contracts promising not to share the work, and they had the work locked up in a safe whenever they were not around. There’s a huge difference, but of course I understand that you are highly motivated to pretend you don’t understand that. Princhester is _so_ right about you. On all points. > [@](#): > > Well, you could sue whoever is distributing it online, for distributing your work which was obtained illegally. You could subpoena the photo lab and see what documented procedure they have for ensuring that your photos never fell into the wrong hands. Deliberately missing the point. Princhester is _so_ right about you. Again, even though I know you’ll bob and weave and try to avoid the question I asked last time. (But this time I’ll put it in bold so maybe it’ll be a little less easy to “pretend” to ignore: ) **HOW DO YOU _PROVE_ WHO STOLE THE CONTENT?!?! HOW DO YOU _PROVE_ THE CONTENT WAS EVEN “ILLEGALLY OBTAINED”?** Even _if_ the photo lab was completely sloppy about documenting the stuff that came into the lab, does that _prove_ that anyone in that lab stole the content and uploaded it? _Especially_ if this content theft happens several years after the fact? The photo lab can merely say that since this theft happened several years ago, and since the negatives were not locked in a safety deposit box all that time, that a great number of people could have feasably had access to the photos during that time. So, once again, **how do you _PROVE_ who stole the content and put it online?** And if it’s been online for a few years (or even a few months) and has been copied by thousands of people who then put it up on their own web pages or “share” it in some other way, what then? Sue each and every one of them for distributing “illegally obtained content” that they didn’t know was illegally obtained? That they were under every impression was _legal_ to distribute? > [@](#): > > Who do you sue? How can you prove you took the photos, or that you never gave your consent for anyone else to copy them? Pathetic, just pathetic. Anyone who copies them without your permission (and they should show proof of permission) can be sued. Because, by default, they violated copyright if they didn’t get permission. The way _you_ want it, the burden will be on the copyright owner and victim to _prove_ that they _didn’t_ give permission. Oh hell, who is even talking about “permission” here. We don’t even need “permission” by your standards. (And by your definition, this would mean a convulted scheme involving signed contracts and never letting the work leave your sight, being carefully guarded, etc. etc…) And you “prove” the documents are yours the way anyone does. Show negatives, show older versions, whatever. > [@](#): > > I’m the only person who doesn’t support copyright, huh? I suggest you check out the “Should the RIAA offer music downloads” thread in GD. Such creative spin. Seriously, you are a master at this. Too bad it won’t fly, though. Specifically I asked, **who else** will support the idea that copy shops and framing shops should be legally entitled to copy and distribute anything (any negative, any painting) that comes through their shop? Or, that anyone can copy and distribute anything that they stumble upon, just as long as they don’t steal it or tresspass to get to it? Do you think that maybe I should go to GD and pose this question to the Teeming Millions and see what they think? It’s a tempting thought. > [@](#): > > The same way they enforce unenforcable laws today. Copyright law is doing a great job of stopping file sharing, don’t you think? 😉 Except that everyone who shares files today _knows_ that they are breaking the law and _knows_ that they could be sued. And no doubt, many are not into breaking the law. > [@](#): > > How is what we have now any more enforcable than what I’ve suggested? By what I described above. People know they are breaking the law. When confronted, a lot of them usually back off pretty quickly. And the burden of “proof” of theft is usually pretty cut-and-dried. They didn’t have proof that they were allowed to copy it: copyright violation. What you propose means every person _proving_ that they kept the artwork under lock and key and therefore no one had access to “copy” it. Without that “proof,” there’s no way to determine that it was “illegally obtained” at all. > [@](#): > > That’s hilarious, considering that I’m a copyright owner myself. I might even be an artistic type one, despite the outrage of the snobs who claim “Only painters and photographers can REALLY have artistic feelings!” Hilarious? Yes. Pathetic? Indeed yes. Does it make it any less true? Absolutely not. Your attitude directly points to you having some sort of axe to grind against the artistic-type copyright owners. Or something. And as for your “artistic feelings”—well, other programmers may and in many cases probably do have “artistic” sentiments, but you have **never, _never_** demonstrated the remotest hint that you know what it feels like. So no. You are not one of the “artistic” types, and you apparently hold some contempt for them, or something. > [@](#): > > Say, do you want to buy a buggy whip? Going in circles, I see. Why should I be surprised? Princhester, you are _so_ right. You have got Mr2001’s number, totally. This is pathetic. How many times do I patiently have to answer the same question, repeat the same concept, just so you can pretend you don’t get it and ignore it? Princhester ain’t buying your tactics, and neither am I. > [@](#): > > A copyright _is_ a handout. It’s a government-backed monopoly that my tax dollars are paying to enforce (futile as that effort may be), and it limits my freedom of expression in order to preserve some unpopular artist’s gamble that people might someday want to buy his work. Why would the government have to “protect” the copyright of someone’s work that no one wants, and no one will even piss on? It only will need to “protect” it if someone _wants_ to use it. And if it’s so useless, no one will want it. > [@](#): > > You are, of course, entitled to this opinion, no matter how unrealistic or retarded it may be. You can even share it with your friends on the SDMB. There are no laws preventing you from sharing it just because it might have some vaguely defined effect on me or on the market for my own opinions. Now is that not the most deluded, bizarre, twisted and absurd comment on—what? That’s the best you can do? I don’t know. Whatever, dude. And once again, Princhester is _ **so** _ right about you. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/443 "2003-10-02T01:22:39Z")
And I see that World Eater is _ **so** _ right about you too. ---
**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:** [October 2, 2003, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/444 "2003-10-02T07:14:29Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by World Eater_ > \*\*Copy a tape in 20 minutes that will yield a shitty copy if copied, and distribute it to a small circle of people who know each other? Why should a label care? > > Instantaneously distribute identical recordings globally to MILLIONS of people? The label should care. > > Now you can get into ethics and split hairs as much as you want, that’s fine, but if you can’t recognize why a company would possibly be worried, you are beyond hope.\*\* Well, lucky for my “hope”, I do recognize why companies are worried. They don’t like anything that diminishes their control over their IP, or anything that could conceivably put a dent in their profits. It just doesn’t worry _me_. What’s good for Sony and EMI isn’t necessarily good for me, or anyone else who likes listening to music or making derivative works. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by yosemitebabe_ > **The way copyright laws are now, people always know when they “share” someone’s else’s content (especially online) that it is very likely illegal.** And they’d know the same thing this way. If you see a song on Kazaa that hasn’t been released on CD yet, it was probably leaked illegally. > [@](#): > > **What you propose is that everything be legal to share (non-commercially). If something is shared “illegally,” it’ll be on the victim to prove that it was illegally obtained. Which will be usually be virtually impossible, unless they had everyone sign contracts promising not to share the work, and they had the work locked up in a safe whenever they were not around.** It’s already the copyright holder’s burden to prove that a work was obtained illegally. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? You can’t just point to a copy of a song, demand proof that it was obtained legally, and get someone arrested if they can’t prove themselves innocent. > [@](#): > > **There’s a huge difference, but of course I understand that you are highly motivated to pretend you don’t understand that.** Please, go ahead and explain my supposed motivation. I just couldn’t be arguing this because I sincerely feel that our copyright laws are unjust, now could I? Come on, tell us all about my sinister agenda. This should be good. > [@](#): > > **HOW DO YOU PROVE WHO STOLE THE CONTENT?!?! HOW DO YOU PROVE THE CONTENT WAS EVEN “ILLEGALLY OBTAINED”?** You can prove it was illegally obtained by showing your agreements with everyone who processed the film. If the photo lab agreed not to leak it, and Aunt Edna agreed not to leak it, yet your photos are all over the internet, then one of them must have been negligent. Finding out which one of them was negligent is the hard part, and I don’t have a solution for you. But of course, you’ll still be able to prevent it from being distributed once you prove it was illegally obtained, just like you can under today’s copyright laws. > [@](#): > > **And if it’s been online for a few years (or even a few months) and has been copied by thousands of people who then put it up on their own web pages or “share” it in some other way, what then? Sue each and every one of them for distributing “illegally obtained content” that they didn’t know was illegally obtained? That they were under every impression was legal to distribute?** Sure, just like you do now. If your picture is on a bunch of web sites and you want it taken off, you go after every single person hosting it; you can’t just track down the first person who uploaded it and cut it off at the “source”. > [@](#): > > **Anyone who copies them without your permission (and they should show proof of permission) can be sued. Because, by default, they violated copyright if they didn’t get permission. The way you want it, the burden will be on the copyright owner and victim to prove that they didn’t give permission.** Correct. They get the benefit of copyright; they can do the legwork. Why should the people with legitimate copies have to prove themselves innocent? > [@](#): > > **Specifically I asked, who else will support the idea that copy shops and framing shops should be legally entitled to copy and distribute anything (any negative, any painting) that comes through their shop? Or, that anyone can copy and distribute anything that they stumble upon, just as long as they don’t steal it or tresspass to get to it?** Well, it seems to me that at least one person in that thread doesn’t believe in copyright at all - that’s more radical than my own position. One can assume that without any notion of copyright, anyone would be “entitled” to copy and distribute anything. > [@](#): > > **People know they are breaking the law. When confronted, a lot of them usually back off pretty quickly. And the burden of “proof” of theft is usually pretty cut-and-dried. They didn’t have proof that they were allowed to copy it: copyright violation.** Ah yes, guilty until proven innocent. I think the founding fathers would have something to say about that. If I were to sink to using your tactics, I might accuse you of hating the principles America stands for, just as you’ve accused me of hating artists - but I’m better than that. > [@](#): > > **So no. You are not one of the “artistic” types, and you apparently hold some contempt for them, or something.** That’s right, keep repeating that soothing, reassuring copyright porn. Here, let me help you get off: I eat artists’ babies and vomit out cruel, devastating parodies of their work! I sop up used motor oil with Picasso and wipe my ass with Michelangelo. I traveled back through time and drove Van Gogh mad. Saddam Hussein pays me $10,000 for each song I share on Kazaa! There’s a vast libertarian conspiracy to stamp out all creativity under the guise of “free expression” (bwahahaha!), and I am its spokesman. Now don’t get too excited, babe. Let me fetch you a towel. > [@](#): > > **And once again, Princhester is so right about you.** Ooh, a circle jerk. Do you two need some privacy? ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/445 "2003-10-02T08:22:18Z")
Mr2001, I’ve wasted enough time on this. I don’t believe that you seriously think anyone is going to back you up on this—even the most anti-copyright advocates. If they do—hey—bring 'em on. I’d love to hear what they have to say and how they will spin this whole scheme of yours to make it fly. Should be entertaining. What you basically want is that anything that anyone writes or composes or scribbles or scratches is to be “open season” unless they take heroic measures to protect it from peeping eyes and potential “content leakers.” Any person can poke around their friends’ or relatives’ computers and upload stuff, and it’s all legal. Anyone who has a painting up on display on their wall is subject to having a copy of that painting “shared” with the world. Anyone can rifle through someone else’s sketchbook and publish the sketches online, and it’s perfectly OK. All legal. And you think that the only way to protect one’s family photos or personal papers or anything else is to keep these things under lock and key, always document where they were at all times, and insist that anyone who sees the work sign contracts. And even these measures will be basically useless because if anything is leaked, it’ll be difficult to prove who did it. Your “solution” to those who do not want their journals or sketchbooks or the paintings on their walls from being legally shared with the world is an unenforcable law. And virtually no one who steals content “illegally” will ever be caught under this law. (And I see how you’ve deftly avoided defining where the line is drawn in “illegally obtained.”) And you want everyone else out there to just _know_ that unless they are told otherwise, what they are “sharing” is _very legal_ to share. Because hey—if some schlub was stupid enough to have that painting on his wall, he should have known that everyone should be allowed to see it. Or if he was stupid enough to keep a manuscript lying about, he was “asking” for it to be published online. So it’s all good—all if it. Take it all. That’s what it’s there for. That’s the message people will be getting—that it’s all legal unless someone can go to heroic, almost impossible measures to _prove_ that it isn’t. This is bullshit but you don’t want to admit it. You offer half-baked solutions and unenforcable laws and you slide around the questions you don’t want to answer, hoping we won’t notice. And the real doozie is that you think that the _victims_ of all this, the ones who had the _audacity_ to show somebody their vacation pictures, or had the _audacity_ to keep a journal in their drawer, (or have a painting on their wall), well these _victims_ should just suck it up, because what was done to them was “legal” and no one can stop it, or should stop it. Because they shouldn’t have had their work “out there” for anyone to see. So it’s all their fault. They were “asking for it.” This is what you want. This is what you are standing behind. This has got to be a new low for you, I must say. And Princhester _is_ right. So is World Eater. They’ve got your number, Big Time. They see through the bullshit. The constant slippery avoidance, the spin, the pretending you don’t get the question—yeah, they’ve got your number. ---
**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:** [October 2, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/446 "2003-10-02T16:55:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **They don’t like anything that diminishes their control over their IP, or anything that could conceivably put a dent in their profits.** Yes, is there something wrong with that? Can you name _a single_ company that likes “diminished IP control” & “things that could dent their profits”??? Just one please. \*\* > [@](#): > > It just doesn’t worry _me_. What’s good for Sony and EMI isn’t necessarily good for me, or anyone else who likes listening to music or making derivative works.\*\* And it’s all about you? These companies are not here to provide some service to society, they are here to make money. It is their legal right to sell their product _or_ if they so desire, to give it away. The choice is theirs and only theirs to make. Too bad you’re too stupid to own/run a business, otherwise you might wake the hell up from this bizarro alternaworld you dwell in and realize what makes the world go around… Keep giving away that software, let’s see how far it puts your kids through college. \*\* > [@](#): > > And they’d know the same thing this way. If you see a song on Kazaa that hasn’t been released on CD yet, it was probably leaked illegally.\*\* So as you suggested before, we should make that illegal. Of course that won’t do shit, because people don’t realize what they are doing is _WRONG_. People like you I might add. Assholes like you I should actually say. Why don’t you check into the “HALF LIFE 2 source code released” thread? So fuck the company eh? 5 years down the crapper, because they should have kept the stuff in a cast iron box? ---
**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:** [October 2, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/447 "2003-10-02T17:07:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by World Eater \* > **In one scenario the book company and author are compensated, in the other, they are not.** How is the copy obtained that is put online? If I buy a cd and put it online, I’ve bought one copy. If the library buys a copy, they’ve bought one copy. Back to the question of explicit licenses for libraries: I often donate books to libraries. These are books I paid (usually) less-than-retail for. The library then starts to loan them out. Are we complicit in copyright violation? Should we be? I’ve also donated review copies to the library. So, I’m giving them books I didn’t even pay for (at least directly). Am I guilty of something? Julie ---
**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:** [October 2, 2003, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/448 "2003-10-02T18:45:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jsgoddess \* > **How is the copy obtained that is put online? If I buy a cd and put it online, I’ve bought one copy. If the library buys a copy, they’ve bought one copy.** Apples and oranges. When the library buys a copy, the intent is known, and the license reflects that. Go lose a videotape you rented from Blockbuster. You will notice that the replacement cost will be upwards of $70 or $80, where as you could purchase the same one for $20 yourself. As far as “how is the copy online obtained” that’s pretty obvious. A person bought it and made it available online. I would doubt that every person that is offering the file owns the album, and this also shoots the argument of sampling before you buy to hell. \*\* > [@](#): > > Back to the question of explicit licenses for libraries: I often donate books to libraries. These are books I paid (usually) less-than-retail for. The library then starts to loan them out. Are we complicit in copyright violation? Should we be?\*\* Well it’s most likely impossible to work out every contingency, but there should be some procedures in place. Do I know the answer to your question? No. I think it would be counter productive for libraries to refuse donated books, but I think we need to look at this differently. Like almost everything, except illegal file trading, libraries benefit from “natural copy protection”. Essentially all the rules that make music trading simple don’t apply to library books. First off the book is physically unavailable for weeks at a time, in the sole possession of a single person. At the end of that time, the person no longer has access to it (sure they could renew it, but you know what I mean). In terms of copying it, who xeroxes a fucking book? Who types it word for word into a computer? OCR? You spend more time correcting OCR then typing it yourself in the first place. Now of course a few people do the above, but not on the _scale_ of mp3s, and that is the difference. Say I get some online book that some no girlfriend having loser spent 2 months typing up, what am I going to do, print the whole thing out? Put it on my PDA? You ever try and read an entire book on a PDA? Read it on my computer? If I’m at home and have a few hours, I’m watching Paradise Island, not staring at a computer for a few more hours, especially after I stared at one for 11 hours at work. I think most people would do the same. I think it’s a bit silly and unrealistic to compare any other type of distribution model to something like Kazaa and it’s ilk. Nothing on the planet makes distibuting the maximum amount of music to the maximum amount of _unknown_ people in the shortest amount of time any easier. A library sure as hell doesn’t. \*\* > [@](#): > > I’ve also donated review copies to the library. So, I’m giving them books I didn’t even pay for (at least directly). Am I guilty of something?\*\* I guess I have to be consistent in my stance, so _technically_ that isn’t right. However, the book _was_ paid for once (unless a ‘review’ copy is like a free promo), and really don’t think the scale is one that could do any damage. ---
**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:** [October 2, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/449 "2003-10-02T19:15:20Z")
I’m trying to recall whether somebody here mentioned how much the artist gets for each CD they sell. (I was under the impression that it was $0.00 but maybe not). Anyway, I’m sure it’s less than the $15+/CD that the stores charge or the $1/song that the pay-per-download services charge. So here’s an idea: people who want to download music, could make it legal by offering to pay the artist and songwriter so many cents per song. It would of course need to be more than the artist and songwriter make from sales through the record labels. Then we’d be cutting out the middleman, and mainstream music would not have any advantage over indie music. Now tell me this, if a plan like that were put into action of course it would take sales away from the record companies. It would put the screws to the RIAA. But, the people who _actually put legitimate time and effort into creating the music_ would be compensated. Now is that moral? ---
**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:** [October 2, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/450 "2003-10-02T19:26:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by World Eater \* > \*\*In terms of copying it, who xeroxes a fucking book? Who types it word for word into a computer? OCR? You spend more time correcting OCR then typing it yourself in the first place. > \*\* Well, I’m assuming **Estilicon** is reading books online that someone has typed in, though perhaps there are other ways of getting an electronic copy of a book? I haven’t the faintest idea. Review copies are books that are given away to people who either will or might write reviews of the book. I’m assuming the music industry also gives review copies, though I could be very wrong. Julie ---
**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:** [October 2, 2003, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/451 "2003-10-02T19:49:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aryk29 \* > **I’m trying to recall whether somebody here mentioned how much the artist gets for each CD they sell. (I was under the impression that it was $0.00 but maybe not). Anyway, I’m sure it’s less than the $15+/CD that the stores charge or the $1/song that the pay-per-download services charge.** Well I know at Tower Records (I worked there for years) they added about $5 or $6 to what they paid for them. So a $13.99 CD was bought from the record company for a $8.99 or so. \*\* > [@](#): > > So here’s an idea: people who want to download music, could make it legal by offering to pay the artist and songwriter so many cents per song. It would of course need to be more than the artist and songwriter make from sales through the record labels. Then we’d be cutting out the middleman, and mainstream music would not have any advantage over indie music. > > Now tell me this, if a plan like that were put into action of course it would take sales away from the record companies. It would put the screws to the RIAA. But, the people who _actually put legitimate time and effort into creating the music_ would be compensated. Now is that moral? \*\* That would be fine. Keep in mind though that many of today’s artists would be nowhere without a record label to develop them and lend them money. I’m all for the DIY artist, but unfortunately it’s advantageous to get some marketing and financial muscle behind you, and that’s where a label comes in. Of course it would be nice if they aren’t an evil soul sucking company. ---
**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:** [October 2, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/452 "2003-10-02T19:57:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jsgoddess \* > \*\*Well, I’m assuming **Estilicon** is reading books online that someone has typed in, though perhaps there are other ways of getting an electronic copy of a book? I haven’t the faintest idea. > > Review copies are books that are given away to people who either will or might write reviews of the book. I’m assuming the music industry also gives review copies, though I could be very wrong. > > Julie \*\* Sure the music industy will send out some promos, I used to get them all the time at Tower. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2003, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/453 "2003-10-03T10:03:53Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by yosemitebabe_ > **Mr2001, I’ve wasted enough time on this. I don’t believe that you seriously think anyone is going to back you up on this—even the most anti-copyright advocates. If they do—hey—bring 'em on. I’d love to hear what they have to say and how they will spin this whole scheme of yours to make it fly. Should be entertaining.** What is this, a bar fight? Do I need a posse to “back me up”? > [@](#): > > **What you basically want is that anything that anyone writes or composes or scribbles or scratches is to be “open season” unless they take heroic measures to protect it from peeping eyes and potential "content leakers."** And yet you think “even the most anti-copyright advocates” disagree with that. What exactly do you think it means not to have copyrights? > [@](#): > > **Your “solution” to those who do not want their journals or sketchbooks or the paintings on their walls from being legally shared with the world is an unenforcable law. And virtually no one who steals content “illegally” will ever be caught under this law.** It’s about as enforcable as copyright law is today. Sorry, but it just isn’t easy to enforce laws against activities that take place between two consenting individuals, far away from any “victim”. > [@](#): > > **(And I see how you’ve deftly avoided defining where the line is drawn in “illegally obtained.”)** I thought it was clear from context. Making copies in violation of a contract would be one case, breaking into someone’s home or office to steal his work would be another. > [@](#): > > **And Princhester is right. So is World Eater. They’ve got your number, Big Time. They see through the bullshit. The constant slippery avoidance, the spin, the pretending you don’t get the question—yeah, they’ve got your number.** My number, eh? That explains those heavy breathing messages on my voice mail. Let me guess… I really just want to stamp out art, and all the lofty talk about principles is just a facade? I carefully craft my Clintonesque responses to avoid ever answering a question that might cause my facade to crumble like a house of cards? What a pathetic angle - you can’t back your position up with reason, only with emotional appeals, so you question my honesty. You’re only making yourself look worse. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by World Eater_ > **Yes, is there something wrong with that? Can you name a single company that likes “diminished IP control” & “things that could dent their profits”???** I never said there were any. Once again you’ve pulled a quote out of context and made it into a strawman. I understand their motivation. It is, of course, the motivation of every company. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it! A chemical company might make more profit if they’re allowed to pollute; apparently you think profit is the only motivation that counts, so I guess we should all give up our clean air to help their bottom line. > [@](#): > > **And it’s all about you? These companies are not here to provide some service to society, they are here to make money. It is their legal right to sell their product or if they so desire, to give it away.** And if we were talking about whether noncommercial copying were _legal_, your drivel might have some relevance. That would be a single-page GQ thread. > [@](#): > > **Keep giving away that software, let’s see how far it puts your kids through college.** Don’t worry about me, I have what’s known as a “job”. I get paid for actually working, not for handing out copies of information; my employer’s business model doesn’t depend on my software remaining private. > [@](#): > > **So as you suggested before, we should make that illegal. Of course that won’t do shit, because people don’t realize what they are doing is WRONG. People like you I might add. Assholes like you I should actually say.** Such amazing logic: “It’s WRONG!” It’s wrong because you typed in ALL CAPS and used profanity, right? What a waste - not that I expect anything more coherent from you at this point. > [@](#): > > **Why don’t you check into the “HALF LIFE 2 source code released” thread? So fuck the company eh? 5 years down the crapper, because they should have kept the stuff in a cast iron box?** Quake’s source code was released (illegally at first, then legally later) and that sure didn’t hurt iD Software. This won’t hurt Valve. > [@](#): > > **When the library buys a copy, the intent is known, and the license reflects that. Go lose a videotape you rented from Blockbuster. You will notice that the replacement cost will be upwards of $70 or $80, where as you could purchase the same one for $20 yourself.** That’s because they get the movies earlier than you can buy them at Wal-Mart, not because they pay for special rental rights. Tapes are typically [“priced for rental”](http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0204/msg00067.html) for the first few months of release, in order to get the maximum profit from video stores, then the price drops later to target consumers. The video store doesn’t get any extra rights, they just get the tape sooner. If you have a cite to the contrary, I’d love to see it. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/454 "2003-10-03T10:39:43Z")
Mr2001, I weary of this. I admit it, I cannot say that I expected you to ever be this extreme. Are you just slinging shit to the wall and seeing if it will stick, or are you really this deluded? No—don’t answer. I know what you’ll say. You are totally sincere. You really think this is for the best. :rolleyes: I can expect (though not agree) that there will be people who want to limit copyright and who don’t understand why it’s wrong to copy **published** work without permission and distribute it. That I can grasp. Not agree with, definitely get irritated by, but at least _grasp._ But this—this whacked-out idea you are presenting, it’s beyond bizarre. As World Eater (I think it was) said, it’s a “bizarro alternaworld” that you are living in. And I see you’ve got someone else taking residence in this “bizarro alternaworld” as well. Just peachy. There is this notion people have, that can enjoy some expectation that if they don’t, oh, I dunno, let their private files leave their damned _house_, that maybe they can expect that it’ll stay private and won’t be published for the whole world to see. But apparently you’re against such a thing. “Bizarro alternaworld” indeed. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2003, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/455 "2003-10-03T12:10:38Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mr2001_ > Don’t worry about me, I have what’s known as a “job”. I get paid for actually working, not for handing out copies of information; my employer’s business model doesn’t depend on my software remaining private. Your disdain for artists could hardly have been made more clear. I think you will find that producing art involves “actual work”, too. ---
**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:** [October 4, 2003, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/456 "2003-10-04T00:59:23Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by yosemitebabe_ > **I can expect (though not agree) that there will be people who want to limit copyright and who don’t understand why it’s wrong to copy published work without permission and distribute it.** Classic. No one could possibly disagree with you on a point so close to your heart, could they? They just don’t _understand_ why you’re right. If only you vented and insulted just a little more, maybe they’d see the light. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > **There is this notion people have, that can enjoy some expectation that if they don’t, oh, I dunno, let their private files leave their damned house, that maybe they can expect that it’ll stay private and won’t be published for the whole world to see. But apparently you’re against such a thing.** How do you suppose someone’s private files that never left his house would be published, without the creator giving them away, and without someone obtaining them from him through force or fraud? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dead Badger_ > **Your disdain for artists could hardly have been made more clear. I think you will find that producing art involves “actual work”, too.** It certainly does, and I think you’ll find I’ve never claimed otherwise. The only disdain I expressed is for people who think charging for access to their work is a good way to make money, and who would have the government restrict others’ freedom to prop up their shoddy business model. I don’t work any harder than a programmer who charges for his software; I just have a better way of making money from my work. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2003, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/457 "2003-10-04T01:32:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > They just don’t _understand_ why you’re right. If only you vented and insulted just a little more, maybe they’d see the light. Not in every case. But in your case, when someone is clearly living in some sort of a clueless bizarro alternaworld… > [@](#): > > How do you suppose someone’s private files that never left his house would be published, without the creator giving them away, and without someone obtaining them from him through force or fraud? Of course! Of course! What else would I expect from you? More clueless astonished innocence as to _what_ I could possibly mean? So typical for you. I described scenarios where people (meaning anyone who lived in the house or got into the house) could have “access” to files, documents, artwork, paintings on walls. These have just as much “access” to these files as a person processing negatives in a photo lab. And you think that the person in the photo lab should _legally_ be able to distribute the files, so I see no difference whether it’s in a photo lab or in someone’s home. If they have “access,” but didn’t break in and didn’t sign a contract promising to not copy, well, copy away! You didn’t specifically object to these scenarios when I brought them up before; you barely addressed them at all. But I suppose that you’ll spin and spin and pretend that you “didn’t mean it that way,” or “didn’t understand.” **Bullshit.** And of course I know what will happen next—more spin, more from the alternaworld zone. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2003, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/458 "2003-10-04T02:58:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aryk29 \* > \*\ ***Princhester** , have you ever bought a CD? Why do you need a cite for the contents of a CD case? Just now I pulled out a CD that I bought in a music store. It contains lyrics, cover art, credits, and a couple of photos of the band. I would have none of these things were I to invest my time in getting a program like Kazaa to rip off the tracks online. And as **Mr2001** mentioned above, some CDs come with liner notes and “free goodies” (I’d prefer he elaborate on that one, though). And I supported both that band and their record company by buying one of their albums. > > If you really believe so strongly in buying music or going without, then it seems to me you’d have at least one CD or other media laying around. Go cite it. \*\* There is no such thing as car theft because if you steal a car then you don’t get extras such as warranty. Putz. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2003, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/459 "2003-10-04T03:19:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aryk29 \* > \*\*I’m trying to recall whether somebody here mentioned how much the artist gets for each CD they sell. (I was under the impression that it was $0.00 but maybe not). Anyway, I’m sure it’s less than the $15+/CD that the stores charge or the $1/song that the pay-per-download services charge. > > So here’s an idea: people who want to download music, could make it legal by offering to pay the artist and songwriter so many cents per song. It would of course need to be more than the artist and songwriter make from sales through the record labels. Then we’d be cutting out the middleman, and mainstream music would not have any advantage over indie music. > > Now tell me this, if a plan like that were put into action of course it would take sales away from the record companies. It would put the screws to the RIAA. But, the people who _actually put legitimate time and effort into creating the music_ would be compensated. Now is that moral? \*\* Of course that would be moral. Bring it on. Good luck, I hope such a scheme succeeds, sounds great to me. But whether this scheme would work or be moral has fuck all to do with whether leaching copyright from copyright owners who do not want to be leached from is moral. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2003, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/460 "2003-10-04T03:51:50Z")
Mr2001, I think I’m probably wasting my time, but just for the sport of it lets see if I can stop you from nitpicking and corner you on your physical/intellectual property dichotomy bullshit with my hardware analogy. I want a lawnmower. If I can’t sneak one, I will be forced to buy one, which I would do from my local hardware store. I sneak in and take one, marked price $200. I don’t break or damage anything getting in or out. I have an extensive knowledge of the hardware business. I leave $122 on the counter. Next morning at 7 am two hours before the shop opens, the store clerk comes in and notices the mower missing (scratches his head cos he thought there was one the night before) and orders one, urgently. This takes him five minutes. The delivery truck arrives at 8.55 and drops off another mower, and the store clerk spends another 5 minutes humping the mower into the right place and doing all necessary paperwork. This puts him back a little on his other paperwork and he ends up having to do ten minutes overtime at the end of the day which costs the store owner $12. The cost price on the mower was $100 (delivered) and the other $10 I left on the counter is consumed by miscellanous expenses caused by my ripoff (such as a couple of minutes of extra work by the accountant who notices the missing profit at the end of the year). The store owner loses no time. He does not lose any “use” of the mower since it was only off the shelf for a few hours while the shop was not open. All of the additional work created by my act is covered by employees and the amount I left covers the marginal difference in wage costs. The store owner just loses the $78 profit he would have made out of the sale to me that would have occurred if I hadn’t managed to sneak in. Many other customers do the same thing. The store owner as a result stops making a profit and goes broke. Moral or immoral? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697.md?page=24)