MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Fearne stump up for Reggie's music collection?

kerri_gt

No she shouldn't pay. He could have just as easily have lost the laptop himself and if his music was that important he should have backed it up. If its lost, it's his own fault - what would he have done if the system had failed?

Most sites will offer more than one valid download and if he ripped them from illegal sites, that's his tough luck - he prob didnt' pay for them anyway. If the music is on his MP3/iPod he can trans to the new machine or if its on CD he can just trans again.

paulbrookhouse

I'm amazed nobody's picked up on the rather important point that this girl has no respect for her friend's valuable property, to look after it so poorly that it gets stolen within minutes! she should CERTAINLY pay for any unrecoverable losses, and maybe compensate this friend for the inconvenience her stupidity has caused; his generosity in lending such an expensive piece of kit should not be punished by a loss to him. she should also pay for any increased premiums the friend will incur as a result of the loss too.

maybe he will be more careful whom he trusts in future!

kerri_gt

paulbrookhouse wrote: »

I'm amazed nobody's picked up on the rather important point that this girl has no respect for her friend's valuable property, to look after it so poorly that it gets stolen within minutes! she should CERTAINLY pay for any unrecoverable losses, and maybe compensate this friend for the inconvenience her stupidity has caused; his generosity in lending such an expensive piece of kit should not be punished by a loss to him. she should also pay for any increased premiums the friend will incur as a result of the loss too.

maybe he will be more careful whom he trusts in future!

She didn't force him to lend it to her - it was his choice.

Just because he has to claim, doesn't actually means his premiums will go up. If his laptop and whatever on it was so important to him, he would have had everything backed up.

kazlau

:rolleyes: Reggie should have had his files (music and other documents) backed up separately from his laptop. The fact that he valued his music at £400 just brings this fact home. The onus is on Reggie. Fern shouldn't have to shell out for replacement music. I used to tell my kids if you don't want something lost or broken don't lend it out cos you don't have a leg to stand on if something happens. Maybe Reggie's mum should have told him the same thing :cool:

9411john

Of course she should not. Firstly, serves him right for not backing it up and secondly I bet a fair percentage was illegal downloads anyway - if it wasn't then chances are he can download again at no cost. Anyway, why would any one serious about music want it on their laptop. The only way to listen to decent music and at decent quality is with a good hifi system. I have yet to hear music on a computer (laptop or PC), no matter how good the sound card, speakers etc, that is a patch on even a basic hifi. Mind you some of the so called music today would probably sound bad no matter what you played it on!!!

mikki-b

No one has mentioned something that was on the Gadget Show a while back, which was that some insurance companies will cover your digital media such as downloaded music if requested, so not only should he have backed it up, he could also have insured it as well.

Taffybiker

There is certainly blame on both sides here. I think Fearne has a degree of obligation, but not to the full extent. If Reggie aquired the music legally then she could ask him for the titles and artists of the music (£400 worth is a lot to recall; he will most likely only remember his favourites) and obtain those for him. As someone said, collect as much as possible from someone who has the CD's or other legal downloads. Since they were paid for once, obtaining a copy in this manner is - to my mind at least - acceptable. As to those which cannot be replaced for whatever reason, Reggie should simply cut his losses and chalk it to experience.

If the music was not legally obtained in the first place, then Fearne owes nothing.

relaxtwotribes

I think you will find that the laptop is NOT insured. All the laptop insurance policies I can find include onerous get-out clause such as "theft means the dishonest removal of the computer from your possession by a third party" or "where reasonable precautions have not been taken". Pilfering is only usually covered if there is an accompanying threat of force.

Reggie is in for a nasty surprise when he tries to claim.

sbas70

MSE_Lawrence wrote: »

Here's this week's hypothetical situation for you to cogitate on:

Should Fearne stump up for Reggie's music collection?

Fearne’s in a pickle; she has a week left to finish her dissertation and her computer’s gone kaput. She needs one fast, so she begs her friend Reggie to lend her his flashy laptop. He’s not happy, but as she’s desperate he gives in, yet no sooner has she left his flat than it gets pilfered from her bag - she’ll be finishing her work in the library now. While he’s got insurance to cover the stolen kit, there’s no cover for the unbacked-up £400 worth of music stored on it, so he wants Fearne to buy it again.

Click reply to have your say

Yes she should pay up, there is a principle in he bible of all places that covers this. If you want to look it up it's Exodus 22:14-15. If the owner is not with the object at the time, pay up! If hired & the owner is with it, it's the owners responsiblity. Hard luck if it happens to you, but why should someone who has been kind enough to loan it suffer the loss?

fruugal

Of course she should pay or recompile it herself. There are responsibilities to borrowing and lending and she should be gracious in offering to do it too. If she can't pay all at once then she should apologise profusely and then see how he would prefer to have it all reinstated. But it is entirely her responsibility. He should not lend his laptop either. Very precious, personal laptops.