First Arrests Made For Violations Of The FECA

[Backslash]

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.

[Bill 213]

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.

[huntermc]

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.

[St_Jimmyuk]

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

[Bill 213]

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.

[BluesGNR]

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.

[Chodem]

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.

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

[kyrie]

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.

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.

[Backslash]

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?

[Mr Cowbell ?]

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.

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

[kyrie]

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?

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.

[kyrie]

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.

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

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.

[Backslash]

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. 

[Minneapolisnewsman]

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.

[Thorazine Shuffle]

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.

[Backslash]

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.

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.

[The Dog]

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.

[saint seiya]

ryan adams?? lmao

[busngabb]

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.

[Minneapolisnewsman]

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.

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.