Blogger arrested, accused of posting 9 unreleased Guns N' Roses songs

[jarmo]

When you steal something, it implies you took some of financial value from a person or company.  If you illegally download a song, you're not necessarily robbing any financial value from a company.  If you never had any intention of buying that song...the company isn't out any money.  

Let's say that instead having to pay for nine songs in order to hear them, you just download them.

Is your reasoning still valid?



/jarmo

[Voodoochild]

I think the legal matter here is not just downloading, but being the source for spreading them. Also, the guy stole the original demos before converting them to streaming in his blog.

[acompleteunknown]

That's the gray area of the issue.  I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be illegal.  I'm saying that the crime is considered "digital piracy" versus stealing.

On the flipside, I've illegally download songs to listen to them and then went out and purchased the album because I liked the songs.  Is what I did considered stealing since I paid for the music?  also, I bought an Interpol album where the last song was scratched and unplayable.  Best Buy wouldn't exchange because i threw out my receipt.  I downloaded the song.  I felt I was entitled to it since I already paid for it.  Is what I did stealing?

My point is that I think many people on the board are thinking that what Cogill did was "digital piracy."  That's why they are giving him a break...but that's not what he did.  He stole the material before he posted it.  That's where the FBI-level crime ocurred.

[jarmo]

My point is that I think many people on the board are thinking that what Cogill did was "digital piracy."  That's why they are giving him a break...but that's not what he did.  He stole the material before he posted it.  That's where the FBI-level crime ocurred.

And thus giving people a chance to hear music, that's not his, for free....


I don't think the whole idea that he physically stole a cd is the important thing here.

Next time you watch a DVD at home, pay attention before the movie starts. Chances are there's an FBI warning there.





/jarmo

[bazgnr]

Very classy of the band to acknowledge the situation and clarify the importance of the original source.  I hope they get what they're after.

[acompleteunknown]

My point is that I think many people on the board are thinking that what Cogill did was "digital piracy."  That's why they are giving him a break...but that's not what he did.  He stole the material before he posted it.  That's where the FBI-level crime ocurred.

And thus giving people a chance to hear music, that's not his, for free....


I don't think the whole idea that he physically stole a cd is the important thing here.

Next time you watch a DVD at home, pay attention before the movie starts. Chances are there's an FBI warning there.


/jarmo

If I buy the Godfather on DVD then loan it to my friend to watch...that's a violation.  

If I decide to sell the DVD to a used DVD/CD store...that's also a violation.

If I decide that I no longer want the DVD and give it away...believe it or not...that is also a violation.

[jarmo]

If I buy the Godfather on DVD then loan it to my friend to watch...that's a violation.  

If I decide to sell the DVD to a used DVD/CD store...that's also a violation.

If I decide that I no longer want the DVD and give it away...believe it or not...that is also a violation.

Yeah, and it doesn't involve you stealing the DVD from Best Buy..



/jarmo

[Smoking Guns]

Looks like GNR now sees it like I do.  Go after the original source.  Kevin will walk.  I am now happy.

[Albert S Miller]

Looks like GNR now sees it like I do.  Go after the original source.  Kevin will walk.  I am now happy.

Yet he still played his part in it, r u saying he shouldn't be punished also?

[Regibold]

I think he should be fined, but no jail time. I haven't heard of anyone getting jail time for illegal sharing or downloading, esp. back when they were cracking down on people shortly after Napster took a shit. Slap him with a heavy fine, and let him go on with his life.

[chineseblues]

Looks like GNR now sees it like I do.  Go after the original source.  Kevin will walk.  I am now happy.

Kevin will not walk, the RIAA will see to that. He is going to get some hefty fines from this.

[acompleteunknown]

If I buy the Godfather on DVD then loan it to my friend to watch...that's a violation.  

If I decide to sell the DVD to a used DVD/CD store...that's also a violation.

If I decide that I no longer want the DVD and give it away...believe it or not...that is also a violation.

Yeah, and it doesn't involve you stealing the DVD from Best Buy..



/jarmo

But it's still a crime. 

I'm agreeing you with you about Cowgill.  All I was pointing out is why some people on this site don't get the severity of what he did.

[patcooper]

This 9 song argument is such crap. Chinese Democracy. Madagascar, IRS, TWAT.Better.Blues all leaked way before this guy posted them on his website.we all heard these songs live. we all sang with axl while in the audience, how the fuck did you know the lyrics if you didnt download the leaks.  he leaked 3 new songs, and rhiad we heard and have live version of anyway. 2 never heard before songs and if the world blows.

[D]

That's the gray area of the issue.  I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be illegal.  I'm saying that the crime is considered "digital piracy" versus stealing.

On the flipside, I've illegally download songs to listen to them and then went out and purchased the album because I liked the songs.  Is what I did considered stealing since I paid for the music?  also, I bought an Interpol album where the last song was scratched and unplayable.  Best Buy wouldn't exchange because i threw out my receipt.  I downloaded the song.  I felt I was entitled to it since I already paid for it.  Is what I did stealing?

My point is that I think many people on the board are thinking that what Cogill did was "digital piracy."  That's why they are giving him a break...but that's not what he did.  He stole the material before he posted it.  That's where the FBI-level crime ocurred.

There are different ways to look at it:

I've bought like every GNR and Bon Jovi album at least 4 times over

So If I can't find my copy of AFD, I don't feel I am stealing seeing as I have owned at one time or the other 4 different copies.

The thing with file sharing is, U are sort of an accomplice to people who don't buy it. So u may not have stole it but u are helping hundreds if not thousands steal it by leaving your Torrent open.

Its sort of accessory to stealing cause u are helping others.

This is totally different cause the album isn't released yet, so people basically are reviewing and forming a first impression over unfinished demos and that isn't fair after all this time.

[GunnerOne 84]

When you steal something, it implies you took some of financial value from a person or company.  If you illegally download a song, you're not necessarily robbing any financial value from a company.  If you never had any intention of buying that song...the company isn't out any money.  

Let's say that instead having to pay for nine songs in order to hear them, you just download them.

Is your reasoning still valid?



/jarmo

As much as I firmly believe the band and the label is in the right, this is a poor example.

These songs are not currently available for purchase, although the speed and severity of the response by the RIAA suggests that may change soon.

There is also the chance that these songs are newly copyrighted, as they are being prepared for release.

[GNRreunioneventually]

This 9 song argument is such crap. Chinese Democracy. Madagascar, IRS, TWAT.Better.Blues all leaked way before this guy posted them on his website.we all heard these songs live. we all sang with axl while in the audience, how the fuck did you know the lyrics if you didnt download the leaks.  he leaked 3 new songs, and rhiad we heard and have live version of anyway. 2 never heard before songs and if the world blows.

i completely agree with you there

if he is fined don't fine him for all 9 songs just fine him 3 times for the new shit that he droped


btw, Ryiahd is the best

[jarmo]

if he is fined don't fine him for all 9 songs just fine him 3 times for the new shit that he droped

It's not that simple. He didn't have the right to post any of those nine tracks.

Cogill is charged with one count of violating Title 17, United States Code Section, 506 (a) (1) (C). The copyright infringement charge is related pre-released material, "distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/fbi-uploader-co.html



/jarmo

[faldor]

This 9 song argument is such crap. Chinese Democracy. Madagascar, IRS, TWAT.Better.Blues all leaked way before this guy posted them on his website.we all heard these songs live. we all sang with axl while in the audience, how the fuck did you know the lyrics if you didnt download the leaks.  he leaked 3 new songs, and rhiad we heard and have live version of anyway. 2 never heard before songs and if the world blows.

i completely agree with you there

if he is fined don't fine him for all 9 songs just fine him 3 times for the new shit that he droped


btw, Ryiahd is the best

When he posted those 9 tracks Time Magazine and other media outlets reviewed the tracks as if it WAS the album.  So I strongly disagree he should only be charged for the 3 tracks.  He posted almost an entire albums worth of material on his website, regardless of when/if most of the songs had leaked prior.  He had some reputable media members buying into the fact that it was the finished product. 

[GNR4L]

This 9 song argument is such crap. Chinese Democracy. Madagascar, IRS, TWAT.Better.Blues all leaked way before this guy posted them on his website.we all heard these songs live. we all sang with axl while in the audience, how the fuck did you know the lyrics if you didnt download the leaks.  he leaked 3 new songs, and rhiad we heard and have live version of anyway. 2 never heard before songs and if the world blows.

i completely agree with you there

if he is fined don't fine him for all 9 songs just fine him 3 times for the new shit that he droped


btw, Ryiahd is the best

When he posted those 9 tracks Time Magazine and other media outlets reviewed the tracks as if it WAS the album.  So I strongly disagree he should only be charged for the 3 tracks.  He posted almost an entire albums worth of material on his website, regardless of when/if most of the songs had leaked prior.  He had some reputable media members buying into the fact that it was the finished product. 

That's what sucks about all this Time Magazine doing a review there's not even a release date, video, single !!!! this is why leaking is bad for bands and labels !!!

[FunkyMonkey]

Blogger Kevin Cogill charged with felony in leak of Guns N' Roses songs

By Michelle Quinn and Swati Pandey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
August 29, 2008

When five FBI agents arrested Kevin Cogill at his Culver City apartment, it marked the newest weapon in the entertainment industry's war on piracy: felony charges against small-time bootleggers.

Cogill posted nine leaked songs from an unreleased Guns N' Roses album, which has been in the works for more than a decade, on his music blog in June. The site crashed under the traffic, and he removed the songs after a few hours when the Los Angeles-based rock band's lawyers complained.

Now he faces up to three years in prison and $250,000 in fines. On Wednesday he became the first Californian charged under a 3-year-old federal anti-piracy law that makes it a felony to distribute a copyrighted work on computer networks before its release.

"In the past, these may have been viewed as victimless crimes," said Craig Missakian, an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles who built the case with the FBI and recording-industry investigators. "But in reality, there's significant damage. This law allows us to prosecute these cases."

Cogill, 27, was arrested Wednesday and released on $10,000 bond. He was not required to enter a plea. His public defender, Anthony Eaglin, declined to comment.

"I hope he rots in jail," said Slash, the former Guns N' Roses lead guitarist. "It's going to affect the sales of the record, and it's not fair. The Internet is what it is, and you have to deal with it accordingly, but I think if someone goes and steals something, it's theft."

The entertainment industry has long fought to protect official release dates. It contends that sales are lost when a movie or song is available free on the Internet before it hits stores. Leaked songs are often unfinished and of poor sound quality.

Pre-release piracy "pops the balloon," said Eric German, a partner with Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp who has represented the recording industry in piracy cases. "It rips up the lottery ticket. It takes the wind out of everything."

The Recording Industry Assn. of America has long relied on civil lawsuits to combat piracy. But the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 gave it a new hammer -- felony charges with stiff penalties for posting even one song before its release.

The law has been used only a few times, mostly to tackle big commercial piracy rings. But in 2006, two people were charged with distributing a version of a Ryan Adams & the Cardinals album, "Jacksonville City Nights," on the Internet before it hit stores. They were sentenced to two months of house arrest and two years' probation.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-music29-2008aug29,0,729953.story?page=1

Thanks to Blabbermouth.net