William Gray wrote:

> Peter,
> I'm not sure I understand your point here. Do you believe
> people should not be held responsible for breaking the law? Or
> do you think the law should be changed? Just interested in
> clarity, I guess.

Actually, Pepsi & Apple are offering those four kids a chance to cancel
their losses, or even turn their losses (i.e., being sued) into a
profit, in that the ads will keep on paying them as long as the ads are
on the air. That should compensate for whatever judgment is made against
them for copyright enforcement. So I don't see why Orlowski thinks they
are being shamed. It's a triumph for them. :-)

But as for your further point about "responsibility" (which I have come
to regard as perhaps the most obscene word in English). It is impossible
to make exact estimates, but I think it a reasonable guess to say that
for every 5 crimes the police-courts-prison system prevents, it
generates 6 crimes. In other words by abolishing punishment (or at least
prisons) we could reduce the crime rate by about 16 per cent. The
conviction that people ought to be held "responsible" for this that &
the other offense generates a lot of misery for everyone. (Angela Davis
has seriously argued for the abolition of prisons, as did Johnny Cash in
his song "San Quentin.")