You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Alleged Guns N' Roses Leaker Pleads Innocent
One more last note. These leaks have done major PR for CD. Most fans love the new music and it encourages them to spread the word and build excitement which means more peopel waiting in line at Best Buy at midnight. Rolling Stone wouldn't be doing polls on GN'R songs had this not leaked. The only reviews we'd have would be video game reviews over Shacler's which weren't that great if I recall. In my opinion, these leaks have done far more good by consolidating and motivating the base. Without them, people would have given up long ago.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Alleged Guns N' Roses Leaker Pleads Innocent
Oh yea, if I see that faggot Fernando at a concert, I'm gonna kick him in the balls.
Re: Alleged Guns N' Roses Leaker Pleads Innocent
but how was he to know who intellectual property it was? its never been released by anybody
he guessed guns n roses...he coulda been wrong
How can they be illegal to post if they're not copyrighter (which they weren't at the time). Let's be honest here, GN'R has a long history of denying these leaks as legit, and more often than not, the fans couldn't agree if songs were legit or not. This is the Feds trying to make an example of one person and I don't think it will hold up. The thousands of people who have been sued over sharing Mp3s often settle for a few grand in damages. Since this guy had no way of knowing for certain that these songs were even legit GN'R songs and they weren't copyrighted at that time, I think they're going to have a hard time charging him with copyright.
He claimed right on his blog that they were final mastered versions from Chinese Democracy (which as it turns out was incorrect) but I doubt if that will matter to the court. And just because these versions are rough mixes doesn't mean that there's no copyright on them, either. The recording artist and/or record company owns the copyright whether they're sloppy four track demos or full finished master recordings.
Still, I wish the guy luck and I hope he doesn't get stuck in jail for five years. I could hear the conversation now:
Cogill: So, what are you guys in for?
Thug #1: I got caught dealing crack to school kids.
Thug #2: I got busted for stealling Cadillacs.
Thug #3: I ran over a family while I was driving drunk. How about you?
Cogill: I put some unreleased GNR songs on my web page.
Thug #1: Damn, that shit is hardcore! We were gonna rape you in the shower later, but now we better leave your ass alone! 
Re: Alleged Guns N' Roses Leaker Pleads Innocent
Let me explain copyright laws... the work doesn't have to be officially published. As an extreme example, if you write a shopping list, you own its distribution rights, as you are the creator of the list. If someone finds it and posts it on the internet, that's copyright infringement. As long as GNR, UMG, and the feds can prove that the song belongs to GNR (pretty easy to do if it ends up on the album), and can prove that it was written and recorded before Skwerl got his hands on it (which is pretty obvious), then Cogill has no case.
Re: Alleged Guns N' Roses Leaker Pleads Innocent
yeah i get that part but he streamed the audio...not offered it for download...so isnt that the same as a radio station playing leaks? they get issues a cease and desist then if they dont comply then the shit hits the fan
I think that's really his only line of defense. The problem is that often the judges and juries have little understanding of the technological details of these cases. I mean, imagine trying to explain to your mom the difference between posting a download link for an mp3 and posting a streaming link for an mp3 which downloads to a temporary cache file in your computer, and can easily be captured by various plugins and techniques.
Also, the songs weren't playing as part of a continuous stream like a web radio station, you clicked to play them in an embedded player, right? Again, this may be a small detail, but the jury may be completely clueless as to understanding the difference.
