You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Bright Eyes 2005
- Rep: 27
Re: **Kevin Cogill Who Leaked 9 GnR Songs Arrested Today**
The RIAA is acting under an agreement they made with Universal, Warner, etc. years ago. This has much more to do with the labels full roster, and not GNR. You guy's are missing a major point, once it was determined this was leaked out of Universal, then GNR had no control over the subsequent events. This is a major threat to the label, and a warning shot to potential leakers with all of the huge releases coming this Fall. Sure, they were informed of this, but once he told the Fed's he leaked it, neither the RIAA, Universal, or GNR could do anything. The Federal Prosecutor's duty--by law--is to prosecute crimes.
Much of the anger here, should be directed at the RIAA and the labels agreement, not GNR. For God's sake, it's AMAZING THAT NO ONE HAS BEEN PROSECUTED FOR ALL OF THE LEAKS OF THEIR MATERIAL OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS, INCLUDING THE ILLUSION OUTTAKES. IF GNR WERE BEHIND THIS, THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED YEARS AGO.
- Bright Eyes 2005
- Rep: 27
Re: **Kevin Cogill Who Leaked 9 GnR Songs Arrested Today**
Alas, Wired details the full story--GNR has nothing to do with the criminal side, but could (not likely) pursue the Civil side. Quit blaming the band:
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/08/gun … es-le.html
The feds may have their hooks into him, but Guns 'N Roses leaker Kevin Cogill's real headache is still the band. Chances of him getting any jail time are slim, but Guns 'N Roses could bankrupt him -- if they want to.
"There's a specific law, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, that deals specifically with pre-release material -- the rationale being that it prevents the owner of the copyright from getting the first release," says entertainment lawyer Howard Rubin, a partner at Goetz & Fitzpatrick in New York. "The first release is always the one that's going to get the most profit for the person who owns the copyright. To take that first opportunity from someone is more serious, and is usually pursued criminally to try to prevent that (from happening again)."
Cogill could face both criminal charges from the federal government and a civil copyright infringement suit from the Guns 'N Roses camp. The criminal charges, which have already been filed, could cost Cogill $250,000 and up to three years in jail. Civil charges brought by Guns 'N Roses could prove more costly, even in the absence of any actual damage to the band. Statutory damages for releasing the material with intent or malice are up to $150,000 per song, for a total that could exceed $1.3 million.
Cogill could end up owing even if he shows that his leak of the songs actually helped the Guns 'N Roses' bottom line by generating press coverage for the band. The statutory damages do not take into account whether any actual damage was done -- only that the infringement was intentional or malicious, which Rubin says would be relatively easy for Guns 'N Roses' lawyers to prove.
So far, evidence points towards leniency, as far as the federal case goes. Especially important, according to Rubin, is the fact that the feds released Cogill on a signature bond, which means he didn't have to put up any money, but rather agreed to pay a $10,000 fine if he misses his preliminary hearing on September 17. If the feds were looking to prosecute Cogill to the maximum extent of the law, he said, Cogill's bail situation would have been more severe.
"In my opinion, and I'm assuming it's his first offense," says Rubin, "I wouldn't expect significant jail time, but I would expect a fine and some jail time. It's a felony, not a misdemeanor, and the federal courts have guidelines depending on how much profit was made, the seriousness of the crime and whether the person cooperated," adding, "He may end up getting probation; I would be shocked if he got anywhere near three years in prison."
Assuming the federal case goes as smoothly as Rubin expects, the next potential threat to Cogill comes in the form of a civil suit from Guns 'N Roses (right), with those potential $1.3 million or so in statutory damages. However, the band may not want to risk becoming the next Metallica.
"The band is in the position now where they can start a civil action, and they would be successful," says Rubin, "But how are their fans feeling about this? They'll have their own public relations issues as to whether they're going to start an action here."
The band will not benefit financially from the criminal suit, so if Axel and co. want compensation, it'll have to come from a civil suit -- regardless of any potential backlash. But Cogill, a 27-year-old Los Angeles web designer, most likely cannot pay the full extent of the damages. "What does this guy have in terms of assets?," he asked. "What can they collect?"
In his initial post with a link to the .zip file, which he took down after receiving a cease and desist letter, Cogill said that one reason he leaked the tracks was that Guns 'N Roses had apparently hoarded them for so long.
"I always said that the more that Axl and Geffen jerked around trying to figure out how to release this finally finished album that we've all been waiting over 13 years for," he wrote, "the greater the chances would be that it would slip out of a pressing plant or office somewhere and wind up in the hands of some asshole with a blog. So... Hey, I told you so."
Re: **Kevin Cogill Who Leaked 9 GnR Songs Arrested Today**
IF GNR WERE BEHIND THIS, THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED YEARS AGO.
wrong, because years ago the illegal leaking didn't hurt final sales of the record....and it does now....that's why bands and their "people" are getting all upset about it...because it affects their bottom line...
Axl should do the same thing he apparently did with MSL, and get the record company off this kid's back...even if he has to pay the 10 grand bail...
that should make him look pretty sweet in the eyes of the fans....but at the same time, it will send a message that its ok to do things like that...
which it isn't...
but we like doing it...
cause we have nothing else to do while we wait for his ass....
Re: **Kevin Cogill Who Leaked 9 GnR Songs Arrested Today**
Neemo, again, you are taking it to far, a concert recording is COMPLETELY different as it is not part of a RECORDING AGREEMENT between a band and a label. I am only talking about music recorded in a studio which is intended to fulfill contractual obligations under a recording agreement. Thus, the Illusion demos technically could render the same type of action if someone has the mind to do it. The Riaa and the labels, due to all the internet piracy etc, now obviously want to pursue it. It isn't that complicated.
ps I 'm done with this. You guys can debate this until the cows come home. This guy will most likely be fined and that is it......very doubtful he will go to jail.
Re: **Kevin Cogill Who Leaked 9 GnR Songs Arrested Today**
^ what if there is a live album in the recording contract? 
:Peace:
its obvious that we have come to a time where the envelope is going to be pushed regaring copyright...
do you get fined and or jail time for recording movies in a theatre? yep...what about recording a live sporting event? yep.....concerts may not be that much of a stretch beyond that...
in my mind, anythign that a band conceivably does in a live setting or in a studio setting is the property of someone...the band, the promoter, the label, the venue, etc etc
what we dont know yet is where the line in the sand will eventually be drawn...thats all i'm getting at 
Re: **Kevin Cogill Who Leaked 9 GnR Songs Arrested Today**
Acquiesce wrote:That being said I am definitely not behind this prosecution and I find it laughable that there are fans out there calling him a criminal when no doubt they enjoyed the leaks he brought to them.
As a fan of the band and the music, and when it seemed no album was comming out for years on end, I too was happy to hear new songs that I had never heard before. But why should my excitment at that mean I think that the person who distributed them acted within the law? In terms of the law he did the wrong thing. For us fans who wanted the songs, he did what we wanted. One thing has nothing to do with the other to me. Like Robin Hood gave money to the poor - but he still stole it!
My point wasn't that people should think he acted within the law. I just think it is a joke for people to treat him like a common criminal when they benefitted from these leaks. He would have never done it if he didn't have a hungry audience that was dying to hear these longs. What he did was legally wrong, but I think it is a bit hypocritical to disparage the man if you listened to his leaks.
Re: **Kevin Cogill Who Leaked 9 GnR Songs Arrested Today**
backslash
The case represents "the beginning of an effort to be more aggressive," said Kathy Loedler, the RIAA's director of investigations for the western region, adding that the industry wanted to add bite to its existing strategy. "When we tell somebody to just take it down and there's no penalty, there's no arrest, there's no fine, it's very easy for them to continue to do it."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Missakian said the RIAA had alerted the Department of Justice to the case, and he planned to prosecute similar cases as they arose. "We take this type of crime very seriously," he said
Re: **Kevin Cogill Who Leaked 9 GnR Songs Arrested Today**
If GNR isn't involved with this, why wasn't the guy behind the initial '06 leaks arrested? People were arrested and prosecuted under RIAA copyright laws back then. It's because Axl had a tour to do.
or because the album is turned in and belongs to the label
