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

[jarmo]

I am torn on the amount of harm they do to a band, any band.  If the music is good then I think the harm is minimal.  It can create a buzz and fuel sales.  But if the songs sucked then there could be great damage.

Ok.

So here's a scenario:

An album is coming out in a few months. Tracks from it leak online today.

Many people listen to them without paying.


The artist has no control over what gets heard, how and when.

Maybe he/she had a plan to release one song ahead of the album's release, maybe there were other plans.

No, everything is pretty much wasted.

Some of the surprises are no longer surprises. People have heard the tracks.

Did I mention nobody paid to hear the songs?



If artists want to use the Internet to promote their music, they often do so. There's web sites, Myspace, Youtube and all kinds of outlets for that.

A lot of them put songs on their Myspace pages before the albums are out. But the difference is, they get to choose what songs and when.

Not some leaker.



/jarmo

[gilld1]

So what's to stop some hack from going and legally getting an album at 12:01 am and going home and posting the whole thing online?  He bought the album but is providing it free of charge for others.  Those same surprises could still be ruined.  With the attention spans of people today, I would rather have a leak months in advance so people will forget about it than the day of the release.

[jarmo]

So what's to stop some hack from going and legally getting an album at 12:01 am and going home and posting the whole thing online? 

Not much.

But at least at that point the artist and record company have RELEASED it.

He bought the album but is providing it free of charge for others.  Those same surprises could still be ruined.  With the attention spans of people today, I would rather have a leak months in advance so people will forget about it than the day of the release.

As I said, it's expected that once you release an album, it will be public knowledge what the album is like.

But in that case, it's due to the artist wanting the material out.




/jarmo

[gilld1]

It seems to  me that pre-release leaks are the norm anymore.  Beck and the Racontours both had these issues and the Racontours were fast and secretive in their processes.

It seems to be six of one half a dozen of another.

Axl wants the music out, right?  He released it to the record company, right?

[jarmo]

You're still talking about how leaks happen without answering the question.

Do you understand that leaks hurt artists?




/jarmo

[IKnowWhereIAM]

Leaks can kill artists...some people justify it by saying record companies are evil...without record companies fronting money, a lot of stuff would never get recorded...when the stuff that does get recorded is released free, the ability of the company to front money for the next guy is reduced, as well as the assumed reduction in sales, and corresponding reduction in royalties for the artist.  Supposedly 13 million fronted for our yet to arrive Magnum Opus...

It seems so anti-rock to think that music is about the money, and I would love to believe that Axl would be sitting at a piano somewhere writing songs without the $$$ - but with nobody paying to cut his records, few if any would ever be able to enjoy it.

I am so blown away by the fact that all this stuff gets out - apparently RB2, the whole damn game, has leaked...that is scary.

[IKnowWhereIAM]

Excellent answer...and the labels needed those big bands to stay in the black...you have to wonder if the labels must die to save the 'industry'.  Bands used to sell 100k albums and make their money off touring...the radio drove sales.  Perhaps the internet is the new radio...except you choose what to hear, instead of some DJ.  That doesn't make it any less legal to post without license - but if a band (radiohead) throws there stuff up for free??? It will be interesting to see what happens...but I am more interested in getting a hard copy Chinese Democracy CD with liner notes, as Gn'R intends it to be experienced!

[Gagarin]

Excellent answer...and the labels needed those big bands to stay in the black...you have to wonder if the labels must die to save the 'industry'.  Bands used to sell 100k albums and make their money off touring...the radio drove sales.  Perhaps the internet is the new radio...except you choose what to hear, instead of some DJ.  That doesn't make it any less legal to post without license - but if a band (radiohead) throws there stuff up for free??? It will be interesting to see what happens...but I am more interested in getting a hard copy Chinese Democracy CD with liner notes, as Gn'R intends it to be experienced!

Were you reffering to a *POOF* post ? 

Reminds me why I long stopped posting here. Which doesn't matter - I'm SMALL POTATOES - just like

1. The amount of people who have "heard all these leaked GNR songs'
2. The amount of sales lost to premature album leaks - hardcores looking for material early will buy it anyway, people not invested in the artist would not buy it anyway.

Album sales have turned into iTunes and online music sales because people wised-up to the piss poor A&R and telent pools of the labels - so they buy songs they like, not 16 dollar albums.
There's been no pop-culture dominating music act in 5, 6, or 7 years - maybe Miley Cyrus...she's basically Wal-Mart's mascot right now.

I'm not condoning this guy who put songs on his blog - but it's silly to call what UMG and RIAA doing as good business, and unfortunately it could hurt GNR's bottom line.
I want what's best for GNR - and UMG and RIAA putting a guy away for 5 years, isn't what's good for GNR. Metallica proved that.

YES - it hurts a band because they cannot control where or when material is it, it makes marketing much more difficult when you can't CONTROL EVERYTHING top and bottom.
But - uh - that's the reality of the 21st century.

It doesn't make the leaker right.
But it makes what he did irrelavent to the tides of time, culture, and a business that is struggling to find itself as consumers have 12,305 more choices than they had in 1990.

[$$$$]

Axl wants the music out, right?  He released it to the record company, right?

ya he wants it out for sale, not on the internet for free

[FunkyMonkey]

This is an interesting perspective on the case...

Lawyer 2 Lawyer Internet Radio Stops to Smell the Roses

Last week, the FBI arrested blogger Kevin Cogill of Culver City, California, on suspicion of violating a federal copyright law for posting nine tracks from the unreleased and much anticipated Guns n' Roses album "Chinese Democracy" on his blog.

Please join me and my fellow Law.com blogger and co-host Bob Ambrogi, as we discuss this hot legal topic with Attorney Lisa Borodkin, an entertainment attorney in private practice in Los Angeles and Attorney Philip Daniels an associate in the Entertainment, Media and Communications Practice Group at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Hear about the legal issues in this case, the new federal copyright law and what the future looks like for Cogill.

Audio: http://www.mayitpleasethecourt.com/journal.asp?blogid=1894

[IKnowWhereIAM]

I wonder if this will all be quietly swept under the rug, post release?  Perhaps pay a fine, or community service?  Or will they nail him to the cross in hopes of finding the source (which I would think FBI would already know following electronic 'tail')?

[FunkyMonkey]

Guns N' Roses Leaker Pleads Innocent

Today 12:01 PM PDT by Josh Grossberg

Welcome to the legal jungle.

The California man charged with illegally leaking tracks of Guns N' Roses' near-mythical Chinese Democracy, pleaded not guilty today in federal court.

Kevin Cogill, a 27-year-old blogger known as "Skewrl" who uploadied nine tracks from the forever-in-the-works LP on his Antiquiet in June, was busted Aug. 27.

Per an affidavit submitted by federal agents, Cogill copped to putting the offending tunes on his site, though he was mum on how he managed to score a copy of what is arguably the most anticipated, if not overhyped, rock record of the decade.

After his arrest, Axl Rose and crew issued a statement saying that while the rockers "don't support this guy's actions at that level, our interest is in the original source [of the leak]."

Cogill faces up to five years in a federal pen if convicted of the misdemeanor count.

However for a jury to find him guilty, prosecutors must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Cogill unlawfully disseminated the previously unreleased songs for profit.

Attempts to reach him for comment were unsuccessful.

No word yet on a trial date.

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b64659_guns_roses_leaker_pleads_innocent.html

[chineseblues]

That's bullshit. He admitted he leaked the tracks in his affidavit but he plead not guilty.....

[wight gunner]

However for a jury to find him guilty, prosecutors must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Cogill unlawfully disseminated the previously unreleased songs for profit.

Never asked for a bean as far as I can see, doesn't make it right though

[bodine]

That's bullshit. He admitted he leaked the tracks in his affidavit but he plead not guilty.....

What were the exact charges?  According to the article (which may or may not be correct), in order to be found guilty, it must be proved that he "unlawfully disseminated the previously unreleased songs for profit", which I don't think he ever admitted to. . .  Surely they don't have to prove he did it for profit, do they?  Or does "profit" only refer to financial gain, or could they argue that the attention he received was his profit?  Anyone know anything about the law??

[GunnerOne 84]

That's bullshit. He admitted he leaked the tracks in his affidavit but he plead not guilty.....

What were the exact charges?  According to the article (which may or may not be correct), in order to be found guilty, it must be proved that he "unlawfully disseminated the previously unreleased songs for profit", which I don't think he ever admitted to. . .  Surely they don't have to prove he did it for profit, do they?  Or does "profit" only refer to financial gain, or could they argue that the attention he received was his profit?  Anyone know anything about the law??

Even if he didn't profit directly from the songs, the prosecution will likely argue that he did receive some benefit from the attention brought to him from leaking the songs.

That said, it would be very hard to prove this, and I still think a deal will be struck before it goes to trial. They want the source, and if he gives up the source they'll let him walk.

[FunkyMonkey]

I listened to the Lawyer to Lawyer Podcast when I posted it, and the lawyers all agreed that he would probably be found guilty.

And what was more interesting was that they believed that he is more culpable than the original source.

[jarmo]

Stealing isn't enough? You have to make a profit?

He took away the artist's (in this case GN'R) right to choose when and how they wanted to premiere the songs.

He gave work, that was not his to give, away for free.





/jarmo
 

[Silverchair]

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b64659_guns_roses_leaker_pleads_innocent.html

[crow316]

Did he steal it?  or just make it readily available?  Thats the question. If they cant prove that he actually stole the music from GNR, then he is innocent.