[BenLurkin]

The problem is that she is "sharing" music that does not belong to her. That is theft.

As for the wired generation, I fear that the Marxists in our schools have convinced these kids that anything is OK so long as it only hurts the "corporations"

[=Intervention=]

It's not that sharing music is bad...it's that the largely moralless populace doesn't have a conscience that persuades them to go buy the tunes if they like and keep them. Again, as it's a widespread lack of morality that causes all kinds of problems in society.

[Dark Knight]

It's not a theft. It is a violation of copyright. Stealing a CD is theft. Is it against the law, sure. But it is intellectual property, not real property.

Geovernment has also settled this issue. We pay a tax on blank media (tapes etc.) that goes to the RIAA for this kind of thing by consumers. I pay a copyright fee for my media, EVEN IF I AM NOT USING IT FOR COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL! I haven't heard anyone trying to recall this tax paid to the RIAA for copyrights in order to sue music sharers. They want a bigger cut. They ignored the computer trend because it did not fit into their monopolistic model, and the competition is killing them. I Tunes downloaded what, a million tunes in its first month?

RIAA is a disservice to musicians everywhere. They use government to enforce something they had other ways of dealing with. When you make a law that is not enforced, no one respects that law. Period. Choosing to enforce it on under 300 people when tens of millions of people disobey is it capricious and arbitrary. Enforcing it on a twelve year old is not only capricious and arbitrary, but foolish as well. If she would have actually stolen the CD from a store, her fate would be less than one grand penalty, if you could enforce the law on a twelve year old. That's the penalty for real theft.

The law was intended to deal with the CD, software, and movie piracy for profit. That why the fines are high, and there was international implications. They busted guys that were making and selling copies of anything on computer media. The technology for doing it was out of the reach of consumers purse.

The law being used was intended for those making a profit from copyright violation, and now has been extended to the absurd. If I own a DVD and want to play it for my Russian class, I have to get permission. If I invite my Russian class to my home, I don't. That particular legal stupidity is directly caused by this bizarre copyright entension frenzy. And most of the money does not even go to the artist, which was the initial reason for copyright law in the first place. If the founders thought the copyrights would not apply to a artisan or writer, I wonder if they would have done it in the first place?

DK