Must Read: Galaxy Note 8.0 tablet: Beating the iPad mini (review)

Topic: Government US

Slash to album poster: 'Rot in jail'

Summary: You might question why illegally posting an unreleased album on your website should put you in federal penitentiary for three years, but Guns 'n' Roses guitarist Slash doesn't."I hope he rots in jail," said Slash, the former Guns N' Roses lead guitarist.

Richard Koman

By Richard Koman for ZDNet Government |

You might question why illegally posting an unreleased album on your website should put you in federal penitentiary for three years, but Guns 'n' Roses guitarist Slash doesn't.

"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." (LA Times)
Kevin Cogill posted nine songs from the unreleased GnR album, Chinese Democracy, and is now being prosecuted under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. He faces three years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
"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 welcomes donations to his legal defense.
I am trying to take full responsibility for my predicament. I consider the burden of legal fees ultimately mine to bear; I have independently raised the funds required to retain my attorney. However, it has definitely been by far the biggest expense I have ever faced in my entire life, and my resources are very limited while formidable costs shall continue to pile up. It’s beyond daunting, being a single independent citizen facing a full-force prosecution by the most powerful government in the world. The United States Attorney’s Office has almost unlimited resources to prosecute. The FBI has nearly unlimited resources to investigate. And while by “resources” I mean taxpayer dollars of course, in this case they also have the added resource of the band’s lawyers. (Antiquiet)

Topics: Government US, Government

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

34 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion

  • Very strong words

    ...
    LBiege
    Reply Vote

  • He got caught stealing

    The botom line is that this guy stole what wasn't his, something he had no input into or right to, and made the decission to give away their copywrited material for free.

    If these were plans to an un-released product instead of music, he would be charged with industrial espionage.

    There really isn't any difference
    AllKnowingAllSeeing
    Reply Vote

    • Good luck

      convincing the entitlement crowd of that.
      frgough
      Reply Vote

      • Entitlement works both ways

        Says me, the term "intellectual property" itself implies that creators and their assigns are morally entitled to control their own creations, regardless of what the law says. This sort of entitlement mentality is precisely what has made copyright law the monster it is today.
        John L. Ries
        Reply Vote

        • the copyright is there for a reason

          The world isn't a small place. we just got bigger.

          It is the duty of the creators to take steps to protect their stuff, however with the internet being what it is and with the world being what it is, any steps taken are never 100% foolproof or 100% safe.

          That's why the laws are there. It's the final step towards protecting intellectual property. Message is.. "You take something [b]KNOWING[/b] that it doesnt belong to you, we will take the necessary action.

          to make a point about this article specifically. Slash may be a big name but he can't make a life from giving out free music. For that matter no artist can. Just because they are who they are doesn't mean that we have they should feel sorry for us if we steal an unreleased album.

          Finally.. Laws of Copyright are now general knowledge. At least the basic and most essential part.. "Steal something and you are immediately responsible and must face the consequences if and when they are brought to you". If this guy could have uploaded the music then he definitely could have read the copyright laws by himself..
          eddyrox1@...
          Reply Vote

          • DMCA

            We can thank Clinton and the DLC for criminalizing what used to be a civil complaint (or why some of us won't vote for pseudo-Republicans, either).
            epcraig
            Reply Vote

          • Go back to my previous post

            Copyright holders are legally entitled to control the works under copyright, but I flat-out deny that there is a natural right for creators to control their own ideas either for a term of years, or in perpetuity. The purpose of copyright law is not to protect "intellectual property", but to "encourage progress in science and the useful arts" (according to the 1st article of the US Constitution). The inflated sense of entitlement among copyright holders is therefore inappropriate and has, for the last century or so, caused Congress to expand the previously modest copyright system into an unmanageable mess that sometimes discourages creative work, rather than encouraging it, and burdens the general public as much as it benefits them.

            The law should be followed, but that doesn't mean the law shouldn't be reconsidered.
            John L. Ries
            Reply Vote

    • Industrial espionage

      How is the law different with regard to pre-release copyrighted materials than it is for manufacturing processes or any other trade secret (the real kind, not the nominal sort mentioned in EULAs)?
      John L. Ries
      Reply Vote

  • RE: Slash to album poster: 'Rot in jail'

    how did this music get to the web? everything that gets to the web should be free! go after the persons who do the uploading not the down loaders. it got there some how. how come i never hear about prosecuting the original thieves who uploaded?
    perversion2003@...
    Reply Vote

    • He is the one that posted it!(nt)

      .
      ShadeTree
      Reply Vote

  • Can't feel sorry for him.

    There is no question that this is illegal. This guy deserves to do a little time. Unless he is retarded. How could he be so stupid as to think he wouldn't get nailed?
    bjbrock
    Reply Vote

    • Assuming he's actually guilty...

      ...I have no sympathy either. I do think that copyright infringement should be a civil matter, except for maybe for-profit counterfeiting operations, but that's not what the law says, and the law should be followed.

      Of course, I have no real idea (and you probably don't either) whether he's actually guilty. News reports aren't evidence.
      John L. Ries
      Reply Vote

      • Did you mean "criminal matter"?(nt)

        .
        ShadeTree
        Reply Vote

        • Nope

          I think copyright should be a civil matter, with copyright holders responsible for enforcing their own copyrights.
          John L. Ries
          Reply Vote

      • 'That's what the law says'??

        Feel free to state what you think the law SHOULD be.
        rkoman@...
        Reply Vote

        • I did

          And have repeatedly. I think that copyright holders should be primarily responsible for enforcing their own copyrights, with the feds only stepping in to deal with large scale commercial infringement. I also think that copyright terms should be reduced from the existing life plus 95 years to an initial term of 14 years, renewable five times for seven year terms (maximum term length of 49 years).

          It would also be nice if it was significantly harder to copyright derivatives of public domain works.
          John L. Ries
          Reply Vote

          • I should also note

            I would accept 7-year renewals with no limit on the number of terms as an improvement over the status quo (Congress increasing terms retroactively every 20 years in order to "save" Mickey Mouse), as it at least conforms to the spirit of the US constitutional requirement of "limited times" and insures that copyrights are held indefinitely only if holders care enough to renew them periodically (and pay for the privilege).
            John L. Ries
            Reply Vote

  • Am I missing something?

    "Cogill welcomes donations to his legal defense. [Cogill) I am trying to take full responsibility for my predicament..."

    I'm not sure I understand the logic here.
    If he's assuming responsibility, and hasn't got the funds, what's the point of having lawyers?

    Surely, if he's pleading guilty, and saving the court the trouble of holding a trial, the judge would take that into consideration.

    If he's intending to put up some kind of fight, and loses, then wouldn't the resulting penalties probably be more severe?
    AlphaSet
    Reply Vote

    • having counsel when being prosecuted

      No right could be more basic to American justice than
      the right to have counsel when being prosecuted with
      the threat of jailtime. The idea that someone would be
      treated more harshly for getting a lawyer is noxious.

      He could of course get public defender representation,
      but if it were you, and you could find a way to get
      the money, wouldn't you prefer a private lawyer?
      rkoman@...
      Reply Vote

      • And even if he's guilty,,,

        ...it doesn't necessarily mean that he won't be charged with more than he's actually guilty of (prosecutors are notorious for piling on), or that the sentence will be just. It's also true (unfortunately) that private lawyers tend to work harder for their clients than do public defenders. Given the stakes, it makes sense for him to hire his own lawyer, if he can afford it, even if he plans to plead guilty.
        John L. Ries
        Reply Vote
CNET Join | Log In | Privacy | Cookies Close