Ipod Controversy

[proschool]

eagledad said:

I'm glad the Sun published the story. It speaks volumes on the motivation behind the continuation of the suit.

It appears as an outsider that the only reason the suit is being pursued is to publicly punish Stephanie Eick. Don't get me wrong, when I first saw the story, I would have expected the Eick parents to take responsibility. I still think they should, but I don't understand why this offer was not accepted.

I think the mother took this right out of the Mike and Carol Brady rulebook. Stand up for yourself, don't take the law into your own hands and don' t accept expensive gifts from strangers.

I did not read the letter that was attached to the ipod. I suspect it preached some type of agenda that was in conflict with the values that this mother was trying to teach to her daughter.

The donor could end this without preaching by giving the gift to the parents of the girl who did not retrun the ipod. They, in turn, could have give the new ipod to Shannon and the case will be closed

[chicoryowl]

proschool said:

eagledad said:

I'm glad the Sun published the story. It speaks volumes on the motivation behind the continuation of the suit.

It appears as an outsider that the only reason the suit is being pursued is to publicly punish Stephanie Eick. Don't get me wrong, when I first saw the story, I would have expected the Eick parents to take responsibility. I still think they should, but I don't understand why this offer was not accepted.

I think the mother took this right out of the Mike and Carol Brady rulebook. Stand up for yourself, don't take the law into your own hands and don' t accept expensive gifts from strangers.

I did not read the letter that was attached to the ipod. I suspect it preached some type of agenda that was in conflict with the values that this mother was trying to teach to her daughter.

The donor could end this without preaching by giving the gift to the parents of the girl who did not retrun the ipod. They, in turn, could have give the new ipod to Shannon and the case will be closed

I don't think its fair to assume what the letter said or what/that it preached. I have a much more benevolent assumption of the letters from the donor and their intentions as well. Regardless, without the letters, I don't think it's fair to assign positive or negative connotations to their actions.

[proschool]

chicoryowl said:

proschool said:

I think the mother took this right out of the Mike and Carol Brady rulebook. Stand up for yourself, don't take the law into your own hands and don' t accept expensive gifts from strangers.

I did not read the letter that was attached to the ipod. I suspect it preached some type of agenda that was in conflict with the values that this mother was trying to teach to her daughter.

The donor could end this without preaching by giving the gift to the parents of the girl who did not return the ipod. They, in turn, could have give the new ipod to Shannon and the case will be closed

I don't think its fair to assume what the letter said or what/that it preached. I have a much more benevolent assumption of the letters from the donor and their intentions as well. Regardless, without the letters, I don't think it's fair to assign positive or negative connotations to their actions.

Perhaps. I prefer to make the assumption that Shannon's mother has the best intentions. In fairness I said what I suspected to be true which is different than making an assumption.

If a parent refutes a gesture of an expensive gift from a stranger for her daughter then the proper thing to do is to respect the mother's opinion and say nothing more. It should not be mentioned in the next mornings headlines. That is simply not proper. If one would like to make such a gesture it should be made in private in the first place.

The newspaper's attitude in this case disturbs me. There is a place for animosity when protecting sources and victims and children. However this is weird to me. I think that the newspaper should not be brokering the transaction and been reporting on it at the same time. It drew the public to make positive and negative connotations about the children and their parents but it does not allow itself to report on the donor.

I noticed that there was no response to the donor's letters reported in the newspaper. Is that because the parties involved had no response or is it because the newspaper feels some allegiance to the donor? I have my suspicions and I will keep my eyes peeled before I make any assumptions. If there really was no response to the letter the paper should just say that both parties did not have a response.

[gatormom]

I understand what you are saying proschool, but I still think the gesture was made to end this dispute.

This must be embarrassing for both girls, and for that shame on both parents. That kind gesture would have stopped any further media coverage and allowed the girls to move forward.

Mike and Carol Brady's rules are too simple for real life. They don't allow for the shame of the young lady whose parents chose not to step up to the plate. Is it her fault that her parents don't believe they are responsible? Yet she has to live with the consequences of her parents' decision.

The Brady's don't allow for the embarrassment of the young lady whose mother refused the gift. It does not matter what reason she turned the gift down, it looks petty in hard print.

Standing up for yourself and knowing you are right comes with a price. The question becomes, is the price worth paying in this case? I don't know.

[proschool]

Is it worth the price? That's a great question. It's too much work and agony for $400. But is it too much work to preserve the principle? I don't think so. The parties involved might not see the benefit of their efforts for themselves but it hopefully will provide som e direction for the rest of us to follow when confronted with a similair situation in the future.

I am all for simple rules. The rules everyone needs to face today create too much stress. I fear that wewill have a very hard time in the future understanding the rules of life as we advance in age.

One simple rule that i will follow in this case is that when a parent refuses an expensive gift for her daughter that parent is owed the assumption that he or she is doing what is in the best interest of the child.

I still don't understand why the gift was not offered to the defendant so that the defendant can give the ipod to the plantiff. that would have certainly ended the case. I can only assume that the gift must of had some prejustice attached to it.

[gatormom]

I too believe in simple rules.

If my child lost someone else's IPOD, it would be our responsibility to replace it and my child's ultimate responsibility to pay me back.

If someone borrowed and lost my child's IPOD and refused to pay for it, I would consider it a hard lesson for my child. I can't be responsible for how other people raise their children.

I agree that if you consider an expensive gift inappropriate, by all means refuse. This is just very sad for the children involved, who in the end have no voice in this, IMO.

[justvote]

proschool said:

I still don't understand why the gift was not offered to the defendant so that the defendant can give the ipod to the plantiff. that would have certainly ended the case. I can only assume that the gift must of had some prejustice attached to it.

If the gift was offered to The Eicks, I doubt very much that they would accept it, because they do not feel that they are responsible for the loss of the original IPOD (although I personally disagree). This is not about the cost for either party, it's about (perceived) principle.

My feeling is that the donor was probably embarrassed by all of the ridiculuous media attention this story has received, and he/she just wanted the whole thing to just go away.

Although I think that The Eick's should have furnished Shannon w/ a new IPOD, I also feel that Shannon's mom is extremely vindictive. Didn't I read that she was suing for $460? A new Nano is $150 & the songs are still on her computer for downloading. A case costs about $20, so her $$ figure is out of line.

Both parties are displaying embarrassingly bad behavior that is, sad to say, becoming the norm these days.

[bob]

I don't think Shannon lost a Nano. She had the bigger version.

[chicoryowl]

I assumed it was a Nano, but I think you're right Bob.

Also, this has bothered me from the start: "the songs are still on her computer for downloading" The songs she purchased have to go to a computer before they can by synced to the ipod.

[EagleDad]

Indeed, the songs are on the computer still, Additionally an ITunes account store may be activated on up to 5 computers and if you contact iTunes Support, they will allow you to re-download lost or missing songs once.

Granted it's all a royal pain in the neck to do, which is why it's kind of nice that MyFairTunes6 came out (strips DRM out and reencodes to plain 'ole MP3).

If it was a video iPod, the amount sought in the suit seems reasonable, if it was a nano (I think it was), the amount is unreasonable.

Better get it worked out before Tuesday (9/12), rumor has it a new line of iPods will be announced.

[gatormom]

The lawsuit includes court costs.

[EagleDad]

$350 for the iPod, the music and the case, along with $125 in court costs.

[wvhsparent]

I checked out her 1st civil complaint she filed...it was a joke...she just listed the iPod, and case. nothing else...no wonder the judge tossed it out...

[wvhsparent]

Exclusive iPod scoop — only in this column!!!
Jim Davis
Posted Friday, August 25, 2006

Stop the freaking presses!!!

I have a scoop. Something possibly heretofore unreported on the infamous iPod case.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, or perhaps getting your news from no place other than this newspaper (which would be very cool), you know that I’m referring to the spat between two Naperville-Aurora families over one kid borrowing another’s iPod and doing a lousy job of returning it, although even that’s in dispute now. OK, maybe you’ve missed it. Here’s the background: Shannon lent her iPod to Stephanie on the final day of classes at Still Middle School. Stephanie allegedly returned it by placing it on Shannon’s unoccupied desk. (That’s disputed by Stephanie’s dad, who says his daughter handed the iPod back to Shannon.) Shannon says when she returned to her desk, no iPod.

Now, unless Naperville’s favorite supermarket-style tabloid courthouse reporter pores through the small claims court filings every day, I’m guessing this squabble would have gone completely unnoticed. But perhaps one of the aggrieved parties lobbied the Naperville Sun to do a story on it — and did they ever. Each passing day carried some screaming front-page news of the latest development. My favorite was “THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED” on the day the case was continued in court for another month.

Anyway, with the Sun being part of a bigger news group, it ran a Sun-Times columnist’s take on the issue. The story began to pick up steam, and by the time Monday’s court hearing came around, just about every other news outlet in the metropolitan area was all over it. I realized we’d have to join the mob or look ill-informed, so I rather unenthusiastically outlined the story at our Monday morning news meeting.

“I hate stories like that,” opined fellow columnist/editor Jim Slusher, who provided an eloquent rant in yesterday’s paper about cases that draw the unwavering glare of media obsession — JonBenet Ramsey, Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway — attractive and/or rich white females who were murdered, while thousands of cases, many closer to home, draw little notice. The iPod tiff reminded me of a great spoof by Mad TV, “Pretty White Kids With Problems.” on the teen angst shows so in vogue.

Yet, after Jim’s proclamation that the iPod squabble wasn’t much of a story, all of us editor types proceeded to hash it about for a good 15 minutes. And, of course, we did our own story for Tuesday’s paper — a fairly unsensationalistic account on Page 4 by our legal affairs reporter Christy Gutowski.

My holier-than-thou position on this weighty matter was that you could comb through the small claims court cases on any given day and find stories just as compelling as the Who Owes Who for the iPod Caper. So, Christy pulled about a dozen small claims cases all filed about the same time as historic case of Shannon v. Stephanie.

Uh, I might have been wrong. Just a bunch of big companies — insurance, credit card, car dealerships — alleging certain individuals didn’t pay their bills. No pretty white kids with problems; more likely adults up to their ears in hock. That’s no fun.

So, I guess I’d better rejoin the rest of the media mob and find a new angle to this story. Oh, yeah: My scoop.

Shannon’s mom told us she was contacted by the “Judge Mathis” TV show, the 1,834th or so spinoff of Judge Wapner. Producers even offered to pay the loser’s costs. Mom and Shanon declined, though, with Shannon suggesting the whole affair might have become a bit too much of a circus.

Too bad. That might have been a fitting end to the saga.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dailyherald.com

[Arch]

The 'principle' lesson to the parents should be:

Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Accept the kindness of a stranger (in the form of a replacement iPod) and move on with life. The parents at this point sound polluted in their view of the entire situation.