Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Hey, I found this article at http://www.earvolution.com/2006/03/first-arrests-made-for-violations-of.asp.  Interesting how the law is written and an argument that Guns N' Roses fans can use.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006
First Arrests Made For Violations Of The FECA
Two Ryan Adams fans were indicted last week for violating the prerelease provision of the 2005 Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. Familiarly known as FECA, the law criminalizes leaking songs onto the Internet that someone knows or should have known would be commercially distributed in the future.

Robert Thomas of Milwaukee, WI and Jared Bowser of Jacksonville, FL, who are charged with leaking songs from Adams' Jacksonville City Nights onto the Internet a month before its release date, are believed to be the first two individuals arrested for violating FECA. They reportedly face a maximum sentence of 11 years in prison. While the RIAA continues to attack those individuals who prerelease tracks onto the Internet, they still fail to take precautions against those responsible for providing the "pirates" with their advance copies.

In the event prosecutions result from the leaking of the Guns N' Roses tracks, the defendants should use the language of the FECA in their favor and plead that no one in their right mind reasonably believes that Chinese Democracy will ever be commercially distributed.


// posted by schultz @ 8:45 AM

I mean, yeah, who cares about Ryan Adams, but we should watch this case and see what happens and see what GNR might do to prevent leaks from circulating.

Shit i'm a huge Ryan Adams fan......and I'm glad they got caught.  Either way did I download the leaked tracks from GNR......yes........would I have leaked them if I was the only one to possess them.....no.  It's a double-edged sword....but it's not my job nor care to worry about other people having the music.

What the fuck is wrong with our country? They could be sentenced to 11 years for leaking a couple of crappy Ryan Adams songs? There's people who do less time for selling drugs or raping children. But lets face it, the corporations own the politicians and pay them to write the laws that protect their interests.

its a maximum of 11 that will only be given to people who leak massive ammounts of stuff, they only leaked 2 tracks so probably get a couple of years max maybe just even a fine

I really don't feel jail time is necessary for the crime........I would say a huge huge fine and plenty of community service would suit the punishment enough.  Jail time is for dangerous people, not some shit who happened to come upon a cd on an office somewhere (or from a reviewer version as in DVD cases) and sent it out.

I believe there is a difference - Ryan Adams tracks were the furnished studio tracks that would actually appear on the CD.  What we have seen leaked from the GNR camp are demos.  Not only that, Axl, himself, predistributed an unreleased album.  Granted he owns the tracks and can do what they want, but it would be easy to mount a defense to claim that the private distribution by fans was merely a reflection of what Axl himself has done.

Phew, good thing for us GNR fans, we can't be reponsible for knowing if these will ever be commercially distributed in the future.   :rofl:

First of all, GREAT post. It's good to see people taking an interest in these issues.

This is another piece of legisltation BOUGHT and PAID for by the industry via their "campaign contributions." Just like the utter garbage that is the NET Act (No Electronic Theft Act) of 1997 and the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) of 1998.

These laws criminalized something that was previously in the realm of civil law. The NET Act made it illegal to trade songs even if you didn't get money for them. What most people don't know is that before 1997, it was NOT illegal to trade songs. It was only when the RIAA urged authorities to prosecute someone for trading MP3s, and FAILED because it was not a crime at the time, that the issue came to light and the industry bought the law.

The DMCA makes it illegal to copy songs your already paid for FOR YOURSELF if there's DRM on them. Another horried law. It also made it ridiculously easy for copyright holders to beat down consumers, via takedown notices and subpeonas that have little validity to them.

FECA is not the first law of its type either; it's already illegal to distribute pre-release movies online due to other laws, and the first convictions in regards to that have already occurred.

There are currently people, including college students, in the United States, serving upwards of 24 months in federal prison for file sharing. Their cases didn't get much press and the DOJ likes it that way. There are currently three people being extradited from foreign nations to America under the laws I've mentioned here, none of whom were selling fake CDs or making any money. The American government has admitted that in their own press release yet they are each facing 10 years in prison... for sharing stuff online.

To the person who replied "they only shared two tracks" - under the RIAA's warped method of calculation, a single track can hold the value of hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

Thanks, kyrie.  Yeah, I find this topic very stimulating and I thought I would bring it to the attention of everyone else on the forum, as there is a lot of discussion about leaked tracks around here.  At the same time, I  am interested to see what would happen (not that I want it to happen), if GNR were to take legal action against those who have leaked the files.  Mccoy made a point earlier about Axl distributing pre-released copies of the tracks to different people himself, but in that scenario, he had control over who could hear the tracks.  At the same time, the songs are demos, so would they constitute legal action?  I'm not clear on the laws pertaining to the release of demos, but I would imagine that since they're not going to be officially released, it would be legal to distribute them.  However, at what point can a person distinguish between a demo and a finished track in filesharing?

You can kill someone in a Drunk Driving accident and get less then 11 years.

Not at all, even if not intended for release, a) the federal government and the industry don't care, they just want examples made, and b) the demos will eventually be made into a finished form and released.

I think Axl is too smart to launch legal action over the leaks - but I'm not sure that matters, as I believe the government could pursue a case on its own even without the cooperation of the "victim." Also, the record label could encourage a case even if Axl didn't, since the tracks are destined to be theirs.

Physical assault is less than 11 years in most cases. Fraud cases cost less than that. Dealing drugs can net you less than that.

Due to federal sentencing guidelines, also, 11 years is more likely to mean 11 years these days.

Stuffing the prisons with kids trading files and computer geeks who never grew out of it is a bad idea that's already begun to happen.

Here's a nice one:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/17/pf/long_road_0509/

"Rothberg wasn't the only one to believe the punishment he faced didn't fit his crime. Commenting on the case at the time, Marci Hamilton, a copyright scholar at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, said, "The penalty is completely disproportionate to harm caused.""

Most educators in the legal area will tell you that modern punishments in copyright cases are VASTLY out of whack with reality. This guy may have been trading software instead of music, but aside from that it's basically the same deal. The same law applies to music/MP3s etc. He got 15 months in prison, and that is the LIGHT end of the spectrum.

I can't understand copyright laws being so crazy.  15 months on the LIGHT end?? WOW!!! It's not like that here in Canada.  There are usually fines, and sometimes jail time if the crime is major.  However, Canadians could be extradicted to the States to face charges down there. 

Please clarify: ?are they going after the fans who downloaded and listened to these, or to those who "leaked" the songs onto the internet? ?Big difference between the two in my opinion.

Looks to me that it's going after the people who "leaked" the songs.

From what I gathered from the article, there's action currently being taken against people who leaked the tracks... I don't know how the legislation functions, though.

Mr. Intensity is gonna wind up in a cell with a dude named Bubba who occasinaly drops the soap hahahah ;)  just kidding.

As for the punishment, well when you're dealing with MILLIONS of dollars, that can turn into money for a lot of jobs.  White collar crime isn't violent, but it has severe repurcussions - just ask anyone who worked for Enron.  Those dudes deserve to do the 20+ years they are getting.  The problem isn't with the penalties for crimes like this, its that we are too lenient on violent crimes!!!  You'll get sentenced to 10-15 for murder/rape, and only serve less then half of that.  Thats the joke.  But so are prison conditions and the population capacity issues of a lot of prisons.  Lots of moving parts in this discussion.  There isn't really clear cut solution.

ryan adams?? lmao

Feck me. 11 years for hosting an album on a website?

WTF?

You would get less than that in England for killing a person, or raping a child.

Thats ridiculous.

That would make sense! ?It would be tough to prove that people downloading songs, which they were provided links to, really understand that they are a) downloading something illegally and b) that the material they are downloading was illegally placed on the web. ?The people who put the material on the web, in this case, seem to be the one's who might have crossed the line.

Enron cost millions and millions of REAL dollars.

Copyright infringement is dealing with potential dollars.

For example, I think it's safe to say that over 80% of the people on this forum will buy CD, even IF they downloaded the demos.

But, the RIAA claims that EVERY download is a loss.

Do you see the difficulty in placing a value on losses? The only losses downloading can cause are POTENTIAL losses; if I download the demos then go buy the CD, there's no loss. And, what if I wasn't going to buy CD, but I liked the demos, so I go get it? There's a GAIN.

That is very different than when someone goes to a fleamarket and buys a counterfeit CD. In that case, a willingness to pay money is displayed, and an actual loss occurred when the fake CD was purchased.

Oh, and downloading copyrighted material IS a criminal offense in the US, though in most cases it isn't prosecuted because it needs to be above a certain dollar value (i.e. I think 1000 or 2000$ or something). That and half the nation would be in prison.

They are not going to get ANY jail time. This is a scare tactic, plain and simple...it will be reduced to a lesser charge and they will be given a small fine. Fans are not the problem, the distribution/quality of music is the problem. The music industry is yet to solve it's real problem which is lack of talent and lack of great product to sell. The do not allow bands and artist time to mature any longer, want the quick buck, and rely far too heavily on mature talent that in some case are past their prime and have used all of their good ideas already. The people who listen to "leaked" tracks on the internet are the first in line to buy the finalized product when it hits shelves...no question. Only a "real" fan keeps up with their favorite artists via the internet anyway. You think I am not going to buy 2 copies of CD because someone "leaked" a few 5 year old demos? Give me a feckin' break.

You misread the original article... no one involved in the GNR demos is involved. However, the people who leaked the songs in question WILL get jail time.

This has already happened under different laws.

There's people who do less time for selling drugs or raping children. But lets face it, the corporations own the politicians and pay them to write the laws that protect their interests.

so true,if the goverments don't make money through taxes n' shit then they don't give a fuck but if u cost um then ur fucked. wankers :rant:

So would these be the people who originally leaked them
?

that's my thinking : ok:

This is so stupid. Fukk the music industry! Going after the little people when they?ve been ripping us and artists off for fucking decades! You will not stop filesharing by going after people, you will actually never stop it no matter how any laws and rules you pay through your noses to put up. You missed the whole internet-filesharing train and now you have to deal with it and this is clearly the wrong way. And you people saying "hooray they got caught", what?s the deal with that? I think that many people still go to shows, buy records, merch etc with bands they like and that keeps money going into the artists pockets. Filesharing just makes it easier for all of us to hear MORE music than EVER before and also it helps artists to get known all over the world without having the need to have a big label up their asses. The music industry needs a reality check and they need to stop trying to police the internet!

Big props to all musicians and artists that are for filesharing and haven?t bought the lie and sob stories from big labels!!!

I love how they call this the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. Nothing like throwing in good old American family values in the name, so no one will dare to vote against it. It would be more appropriate if they called it the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act Law - FECAL for short.

My internet provider actually sent me a warning letter from 20th Century Fox for downloading the leaked copy of Star Wars Episode III when it was still in the theaters and luckily, that's as far as it went. If they would have tried to sue me, I would have (probably unsucessfully) tried to argue that I had already taken my family to see the film twice, I had gone to the Star Wars Celebration nerd-fest in Indianapolis, bought the DVDs, bought tons of merchandise, etc... how did my downloading of the movie cost 20th Century Fox one single penny?

It's no different with the music industry. I'll admit, I've dowloaded my fair share of albums that I haven't paid for. However, most of these are albums that I probably would not have bought in the first place. In fact there's numerous albums I've downloaded that I wouldn't have given a chance otherwise, and in turn I've actually gone out and bought the CD. 

I think the fuckin' copyright laws are shit,anyway,I did download the leaks and shit,and the only reason that I ever use any file sharing programs is to get live stuff or demos,I'm sure I'm not the only one,anyway,here in the states the problem is the fuckin' shit is all out of control :peace:

the judges in the US should get their priorities straight.

its funny how politicians who deceive the public and kill innocent people half the world away are never punished, whereas a person who leaks a fuckin album gets 11 years in prison :'(

its fuckin disgusting

Material damage that costs big business or governments big bucks will always go first no matter what. That?s what sick in this society. If I spray paint a wall would get me a harder punishment than if I beat an old lady into a coma.

I think it has to do with America being run by corporations and the alighty dollar.? Since the U.S. government collects billions upon billions of dollars in taxes from corporations, the government in turn must protect these corporations.? My fear is that my Canada is becoming more and more the same way and soon we will lose our justice system, if things don't change.? I don't think it's reasonable to have stiffer penalties for money laundering and copyright infringement (which we don't, yet) than we do for rape, pedophilia, and murder.? But, as long as big corporations are becoming larger contributors to government's revenues, it looks as though it could become that way in the future.? However, when you think about it this way, if you steal from a corporation, you're essentially stealing from all of the shareholders of the organization, as opposed to just one person if you steal from an individual.? A CD from one person is what? $15?? From 200,000 people?? that's $3,000,000.? Big difference.? I really don't know where I stand on this, as can be seen.? :peace:

What is this? Retards gone wild?  I didn't realize this board had so many members with law degrees.

I don't have a law degree... yet!   ;D

haha.. i didn't mean it to sound harsh, i just though it was amusing to see everyone going back and forth over this as if it had any representation of what would be said in course.

It didn't sound harsh to me.   :peace:  And you're right, it is funny that people are going back and forth on the issue (forums in general are funny, in that everyone gives an opinion, often spontaneous and witty).   : ok:

But, this is an important issue in that it potentially affects almost every member on the board who have been listening to leaked songs.  I mean, if the law comes down hard on the leakers, it's definitely going to affect the amount of leaked tunes available in the future.  Personally, I'm going to keep an eye on this issue, as it may impact the availability of songs like Better and TWAT in the future.  While we don't always agree to the laws, we have to adhere to them, or we pay the consequences.  It's that simple.  However, it's going to be interesting to see how the American government enforces this law and the impact it will have on leaks.

I agree 110%.  It isn't often that landmark legal cases have significant effect on the future of Guns N' Roses fans.