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

[*Timothy*]

The whole fining someone 30k or more for songs is a bit fucked to me. When they basically have said the songs have a worth of a bukc a piece.

[D]

truth is people dont buy music anymore. as more and more people get computers.



Record labels STILL will never figure out, that all they have to do to sell more records is:

1. Make better music

2. Stop selling the singles for .99 cents *DUMB BASTARDS*

3. make all CD's  8 bucks a piece




casual fans are who buy albums.   Let's say I hear the new U2 song on the radio and I love it. well back in the day, the only way for me to own this song was to go buy the 15 dollar CD.

Now, I can go to Itunes and pay 99 cents. get that song and say fuck the rest cause I am not a U2 fan. I don't care about the catalog, I just want the hit.



Kid Rock figured that shit out quick which is why his rock N Roll Jesus CD went from gold to Double Platinum.

All Summer Long was a huge hit and guess what? U couldn't buy it for .99 cents. U had to buy the CD. If it had been available for .99 cents. His album wouldn't have sold shit.

[jarmo]

What people fail to realize is, stealing music is theft just like anything else.

But there is a key distinction:

If I have a loaf of bread and you steal it from me, you have bread and I don't.  But if you "steal" a song from me, you now have the song, and, I still have have it too.

That's why your analogy is flawed.


It's not just a theft of a physical thing. It's also a theft of an experience (for example: the timing of your first listen) and rights (to choose when and how the public would hear it, what it would cost etc.).


It's like if you're waiting to see a movie that premieres in a few months. You booked a ticket to see it already because you really want to be among the first to see it.

But then D tells the whole world how the movie ends. You can still use your pre-booked ticket to go see the movie, he didn't steal your ticket after all......



/jarmo

[Albert S Miller]

The whole fining someone 30k or more for songs is a bit fucked to me. When they basically have said the songs have a worth of a bukc a piece.That's why your analogy is flawed.


It's not just a theft of a physical thing. It's also a theft of an experience (for example: the timing of your first listen) and rights (to choose when and how the public would hear it, what it would cost etc.).

Do the math Timothy ,

[thesloth]

truth is people dont buy music anymore. as more and more people get computers.



Record labels STILL will never figure out, that all they have to do to sell more records is:

1. Make better music

2. Stop selling the singles for .99 cents *DUMB BASTARDS*

3. make all CD's  8 bucks a piece




casual fans are who buy albums.   Let's say I hear the new U2 song on the radio and I love it. well back in the day, the only way for me to own this song was to go buy the 15 dollar CD.

Now, I can go to Itunes and pay 99 cents. get that song and say fuck the rest cause I am not a U2 fan. I don't care about the catalog, I just want the hit.



Kid Rock figured that shit out quick which is why his rock N Roll Jesus CD went from gold to Double Platinum.

All Summer Long was a huge hit and guess what? U couldn't buy it for .99 cents. U had to buy the CD. If it had been available for .99 cents. His album wouldn't have sold shit.

ACDC sold 1.2 million copies of black ice
Metallica sold over 1 million
GnR did 500 000

ITUNES has sold over 5 BILLION SONGS.  The reality is people are still buying music but with the internet people have access to more and more bands.  At the same time many bands have come out publically many indie some not so such as NIN even Elton John has talked about artists being ripped off by the labels.  So a large part of the blame has to do with they way artists make money off the CD's this is espcially true in the U.S. and Canada where bands see around 4% of the price of the CD.  Many fans see this as unfair.  But then you have the reverse where the labels get nothing from the tours.  This is where the problem is both sides need to get closer. 

[suicide]

I downloaded the leaks and already bought 3 copies of Chinese Democracy (normal cd, deluxe edition and LP) + some singles. So they can reduce the total amount of downloads by another 3.

Why are youze (not just suicide) confessing to this shit?  Just because you eventually bought a copy or copies of the album, do youze seriously think it's "cool" with the band that you stoled stuff from them that they didn't want released? 

All I'm saying is that GN'R didn't loose any money when I downloaded the album since I always had the intention to buy the official release.

[erose]

I downloaded the leaks and already bought 3 copies of Chinese Democracy (normal cd, deluxe edition and LP) + some singles. So they can reduce the total amount of downloads by another 3.

Why are youze (not just suicide) confessing to this shit?  Just because you eventually bought a copy or copies of the album, do youze seriously think it's "cool" with the band that you stoled stuff from them that they didn't want released? 

All I'm saying is that GN'R didn't loose any money when I downloaded the album since I always had the intention to buy the official release.

But thats only you. What about everyone else?

This was also a very conservative estimate.

He deserves poon. I think they should have preassured him more so that he'd give up the original source.

[GypsySoul]

All I'm saying is that GN'R didn't loose any money when I downloaded the album since I always had the intention to buy the official release.

So just because you eventually bought the "official release" that makes it okay to steal the material that the band did NOT want released to the public? 

GNR put the songs on their myspace for FREE for anyone who wanted to listen to them before deciding to purchase the album.

[russtcb]

I bought the album 3 times (so far). To me, I personally have paid for what I might have heard before that.

[jarmo]

I bought the album 3 times (so far). To me, I personally have paid for what I might have heard before that.

How does that compensate for the fact that you heard songs before the band wanted you to as well as them being versions that were not intended to be heard?




/jarmo

[thesloth]

I bought the album 3 times (so far). To me, I personally have paid for what I might have heard before that.

How does that compensate for the fact that you heard songs before the band wanted you to as well as them being versions that were not intended to be heard?




/jarmo

To me one can't blame the public for downloading the material in this case.  The reason is this is the same as a leaked classified document that gets onto the web.  It is NEWS not entertainment at this point.  These tracks were unreleased demos that were leaked or stolen by someone at Universal. 
But a few problems came out when journalists and bloggers (that are professional journalists ones that make money from blogging) start reviewing the material.  That should not have happended and was unprofessional for them to do that.

[AC]

I buy WAY more music now that I can get it for free by "stealing" it. If it weren't for the advent of the Internet and downloading music I wouldn't know half of the artists out there. In fact, what you end up seeing is more effort by artists to put out better quality music now that they have to compete with "theft". If they put out shit, then I don't buy, if they put out good stuff then I buy.

Bands like Band of Horses, The Decemberists, The Veils, etc. would be without at least one sale by me without stealing music.

AA.

[jarmo]

To me one can't blame the public for downloading the material in this case. 

No one is blaming the public. That's why the leaker is the one who's' held responsible.


The question remains. What right does this blogger guy have to release songs he did not write, own and/or perform?




/jarmo

[*Timothy*]

None.

the person that should be went after though is the one who leaked the songs to begin with . Ie the source of the leak.

[Limulus]

the real source of the leak never was unveiled by now? if so......some big balls hanging at the blogger!

[jarmo]

None.

the person that should be went after though is the one who leaked the songs to begin with . Ie the source of the leak.

I guess since the blogger won't say who it is, they can't.....




/jarmo

[*Timothy*]

Whats stopping guns from looking at all the people who had access to the track though??


Course maybe they are. Going after guys like the bloger isn't going to stop it ! it getting the people who leak them out from the inside that will.

[Lisa]

I bought the album 3 times (so far). To me, I personally have paid for what I might have heard before that.

How does that compensate for the fact that you heard songs before the band wanted you to as well as them being versions that were not intended to be heard?




/jarmo

ok..IMO.. they should sleep easy and be compensated for the fact that a person, such as myself, not only bought a copy for me, but one for each of my teenagers, who btw, think it is 'sick'..and that is a GOOD thing, I bought 2 limited edition packages with CD T shirt for Christmas gifts and just two cds for stocking stuffers for friends at work...all BECAUSE I CHOSE to listen or dl the links..I knew it would be amazing and with the choice being removed from them is no matter to me, they have been more then amply compensated for my breach of judgement or impatience I am sure that when it all boils down, even they would be able to see the reasoning behind most of why people, eager people, people who have been fans since the beginning.middle,now, would do something they normally would not have for the sake of getting their hot little hands on the cd..I personally held out for so long, years..till this last year and I wanted to hear something,anything from them so bad...meh, Ihave no regrets and if that makes me a bad fan or a rotten person, I know the truth..I know how much time and money I have invested as a fan over the years with all the concerts I have been to, all the merch that I bought and the relentless belief that something would,could and did ome after such a long wait. ...just sayin..

[AxlsMainMan]

I am sure that when it all boils down, even they would be able to see the reasoning behind most of why people, eager people, people who have been fans since the beginning.middle,now, would do something they normally would not have for the sake of getting their hot little hands on the cd..I personally held out for so long, years..till this last year and I wanted to hear something,anything from them so bad...meh

No worries, if I remember correctly, Bumblefoot understood and said the leaks were like dumping a mountain of candy in front of a group of kids and saying "don't touch!"

Also, when Axl saw me singing along to Madagascar front row in Detroit back in '06, he was smiling, not biting his teeth with rage

[Skunk]

The distinction that some are missing is that many people will download a leak they want if it's available to them, even though it's WRONG and ILLEGAL... but still it's to be expected, and i don't think anyone is saying the band is pissed at fans for acting like fans do. But there's a big difference between that and being one of the people who makes that leak widely available. Downloading it for yourself is one thing, and bad enough, but as soon as you give it away to someone else you're doing something worse.
The blogger in question did a foolish and selfish thing, and he should be punished. It's easy to think a punishment may be too harsh, but it has to be harsh enough to give people pause. The law has no power without proper justice for those who break it.


Also, i'm just curious... Axl said something about when he played CD at a nightclub that he thought was safer than it was leading to some leaks. Does anyone know if that pertains to this, or was that a different situation or different leaks??