back to article G N' R blogger pleads guilty to copyright violation

An American blogger faces up to a year in prison after pleading guilty to illegally uploading nine Guns N’ Roses songs onto his music site. Kevin Cogill, 28, from Los Angeles, pleaded guilty to a copyright violation, according to assistant US attorney Craig Missakian, reports Reuters. He had been accused by the Feds of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. ShaggyDoggy

    That's Democracy for ya

    American democracy of course, not Chinese.

    Que ?

  2. Dave
    Dead Vulture

    Details?

    A little more detail would be nice here - what exactly was he accused of? Wholesale piracy or just copyright infringement?

  3. Mark

    If it isn't released

    It's a trade secret.

    And if he didn't release it but it was given to him, he has nothing to worry about.

    And seriously, WTF is it with the punishment/torture?

  4. fifi
    Unhappy

    doing more damage than protection

    These sort of rulings probably do more damage than help.

    My understanding of the article, and the case, is that this is a fan who runs a blog, promoting the band. He wasn't selling on the music, nor making it available for download (although I recognise it would be a trivial task for someone who has a clue to grab the stream). All he's done is break the copyright. While that is technically a breach of a law, I think prosecuting for this sort of usage is overbearing and counterproductive.

    I wasn't likely to buy the new G'n'R album anyway, but I'd be even less inclined to do so now, considering how their record label is treating their fans.

  5. Adrian Jooste
    Thumb Down

    Ouch

    And all this over such a crap album? So not worth it, Kevin... SO not worth it.

  6. Steve Evans

    I love American law...

    Look at that fine... There was no mention of lost sales, or how many people (if any) downloaded it, yet they manage to justify a level of fine which, lets face it, will have most people filing for bankruptcy! I'm sure the legal fees are even larger.

  7. BoscoH
    Paris Hilton

    Posted wrong songs

    The gems on this album are "FBI" and "Madagascar". Paris, because she kinda looks like Axl.

  8. Jay
    Black Helicopters

    You would think that the FBI would have better things to do

    Like finding abducted children, investigating "the terrorizers" and such.

  9. Gis Bun
    Thumb Up

    Dumb and dumber

    Well, I think the guy probably deserved something for for having probably no brains in streaming the music. At least he is in possession of stolen material.

    The week when the album was released, it was third on the sales list with something like 275,000 copies [in the US?].

    While it's not a great album, it's listenable at least.

  10. James O'Brien

    HAHAH

    Who cares? These guys are so past their prime it isnt even funny. TBH Ive always hated G'N'R.....sound like classic rock to me. In Flames FTW

  11. James Henstridge

    @Mark

    Even if it hadn't been released at time, it would still be covered by copyright. However he got hold of the tracks, he'd need an appropriate license to stream them from his site.

    If there are any trade secret problems here, that would be in addition to the copyright problems.

  12. Zap
    Thumb Down

    Fools it was good publicity

    This is nuts, surely the record company and artist have benefited from the hype, now they ruin all that by this wasted prosecution.

    I was dead keen to get this album but now it is just a symbol of the greed in the record industry and now I will not buy it or see any concerts.

  13. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  14. Mark

    @James Henstridge

    Not necessarily. If it is not fixed, there is no copyright.

    And why should such works get both copyright AND trade secret protection? They are antithetical to each other.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020