Doesn't The FBI Have More Important Things To Do Than Chase Down The Guy Who Leaked The New Guns N' Roses Album?
from the just-wondering dept
There's this whole "war on terror" thing going on out there, and you'd think that folks in the FBI would be pretty busy taking care of their role in that. But, apparently, some agents are busy trying to track down who leaked the latest Guns N' Roses album online. Why? Well, because our various Attorneys General continue to think that music piracy really is funding terrorism while also a threat to our economy. However, it's hard to believe that some random guy leaking an album is either going to have any impact on terrorism or on actual money made by Guns N' Roses. The album was going to get online eventually. The fact that it was leaked isn't going to change a thing about how much money the band makes. Yet, the FBI is apparently spending taxpayer money trying to track down the leaker.Furthermore, it's pretty obvious that the actual leaker was someone involved in the production of the album (who else would have a copy?). In fact, history has shown that insiders are responsible for plenty of entertainment industry leaks. If so, it would seem that this should be an internal issue, dealt with by the band, its record label and production staff, rather than involving the FBI, who if they must be policing infringement issues could at least go after ones that matter.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, fbi, guns n' roses, music, pre-release
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, there's that whole "no-warrant surveillance" thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's clearly relevant to their interests
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's clearly relevant to their interests
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's clearly relevant to their interests
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privy vs Theft
If you are not privy, you are an IP thief and should indeed be sought and apprehended by the FBI for such a heinous crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privy vs Theft
I sure hope that was sarcasm. You did a poor job if that's the effect you were after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
I sure hope so too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
However, it's pretty despicable to steal an artist's work and publish it such that the market for their considerable labour is almost completely destroyed.
This is the difference between IP nihilism and IP naturalism. Both abhor copyright. Only one abhors IP theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
Tin foil hat, FTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
Um. No. IP does stand for that, but copyright wasn't create to deal with "stealing." It was created as an incentive structure.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
I see...it was created as an incentive to encourage persons to craft "original works of authorship", but that incentive did not contemplate that the exclusivity associated with it would ever be accompanied by enforcement mechanisms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
It did contemplate exclusivity, as part of that incentive structure, but that does not mean it is the same thing as property, as was falsely stated by someone else. It is not the same as property in so many ways.
And, as for the enforcement mechanism, if anything, it should be a civil issue, not a criminal one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
I would insert the word "tangible" before "property".
I also agree that it should be a civil matter, or at least limit the "criminality" to particularly egregious conduct (as used to be the case before copyright went off on a tangent).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
Intellectual Productions of the mind were protected at common law, long before statues, by societal respect, and the shear cost and capital investment of duplication, and also by true monopolies by Kings, and Kings Men. Those true monopolies are what our constitutional drafters railed against. Yet they recognized the value in securing the right to intellectual productions, "Thin Monopolies".
It's hard to argue that the rights created by the bargain were not in fact the economic engine that propelled the industrial world. Yet as Bill said "But all property, I believe, is a set of societal relationships, and not dominion over things." http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/gender-and-copyright.html We have no moral right to our real property nor personal property, we have a bargain such as in real property "the right to quiet enjoyment" fenced by statue, that protects that right.
If I take a picture of a goat, no one under copyright law is precluded of taking a picture of a goat...no monopoly, same for words, if I write a poem about a goat, it does not stop anyone from writing a poem about a goat....If I write and sing a song about a goat...well you get my point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
Yes, indeed. Back in the days before there was a real understanding of the unintended and harmful consequences of monopolies.
These days, we DO understand how monopolies are harmful.
It's hard to argue that the rights created by the bargain were not in fact the economic engine that propelled the industrial world
Not hard at all when you look at the actual evidence.
If I take a picture of a goat, no one under copyright law is precluded of taking a picture of a goat...no monopoly, same for words, if I write a poem about a goat, it does not stop anyone from writing a poem about a goat....If I write and sing a song about a goat...well you get my point
But, if you take a picture of the goat, you are awarded a monopoly on that picture. You are awarded a monopoly on that poem.
What if someone else can do something to make those things better? Well, too bad.
And, since we live in a world where real production is built on those who came before us, everytime we limit what someone can do, or force them to reinvent the wheel, we make the overall system less efficient.
And that harms everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
Don't you really mean to say "or force them to invent a new kind of wheel"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
Well, that is what the system has devolved to. But in actuality, the patent system would allow me to "re-invent" the same wheel, so long as I used a different recipe. That is, the patent is on the process to come up with that wheel. If I come up with a separate process, then I am legally entitled to do so.
However, these days the concepts of "IP laws" get all mixed together and abused. People wrongly assume that "patents" should block my ability to develop that wheel entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
I can cite an artist who sold a million copies of his album in one week, just seven days ago, and this was after the album was leaked (and re-done) twice, and with the actual final version leaked a week and a half before the album came out.
I'm interested in where you got this concept from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy DOES fund terrorism
The piracy funding terrorism is the large scale duplication of CD's, DVD's and software in other countries that is then sold at MUCH lower prices than legitimate copies.
RIAA and the MPAA are barking up the wrong tree, telling half truths to get their agenda pushed through. No one is making money from P2P. Except the RIAA's lawyers and sell-out congressmen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy DOES fund terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy DOES fund terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy DOES fund terrorism
Care to back that up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to editoral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here's the question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: here's the question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it "either or"?
Amd since the FBI has 28,576 employees, two guys asking questions doesn't seem to an overly egregious misuse of manpower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it "either or"?
It's about priorities. There is a limited budget to go after crime. Do you really believe that there aren't better things that could be done here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it "either or"?
If you want to argue that this offense is not breaking a law, or that it's not within the FBI's jurisdiction, that's one thing. But saying it shouldn't be prosecuted because there are "bigger fish to fry" is a pretty shallow and stupid argument.
Go out and speed through a school zone at 60mph, if you're capable of doing so safely and under complete control of your vehicle -- arguably, a "victimless crime". Then, when a cop pulls you over for speeding, try telling him that he shouldn't give you a ticket, because he should be out catching murderers or rapists instead. Tell him that would be a better use of his time. Let us know how that works out for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is it "either or"?
lets say this then. As taxpayer I'm sure Mike and many, many others would like to see the FBI pursuing something more beneficial to society than tracking down a lone person who leaked a copy of a G-n-R album which as both you and i know will be all over the net the second its released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it "either or"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a travesty really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a travesty really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a travesty really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a travesty really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the FBI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the FBI
But there are limited resources, and there are priorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promote those agents
"Looks like we're gonna need more FBI guys."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lobbyists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another napster?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another napster?
fucken hypocrites ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
attorney general singular
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: attorney general singular
Both Mukasey and Gonzales had said similar things. That's why I used the plural.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the issue here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never cease to be amazed, that's why we have so many laws on the books
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chinese Democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thin Monoply does not equal a true monoply
Yes, indeed. Back in the days before there was a real understanding of the unintended and harmful consequences of monopolies.
REALLY......Mike....do you believe that they didn't understand "True Monopolies" and their effects?
But, if you take a picture of the goat, you are awarded a monopoly on that picture. You are awarded a monopoly on that poem.
Are you the real Mike Masnik? Mike I can't quite decide if you fail to understand "Copyright Law", or you're intentionally misleading the foolish. IDEAS don't beget copyright nor patent protection, anyone is free to build upon the idea.
The most "Public Benefit" comes from the most works AVAILABLE, that doesn't mean the most unfettered rights to copy. Intellectual advance is propelled by standing on the works that came before, to see farther, not a regurgitation of the same works. Abridgments of those existing works that are used in accordance, as learning/enjoyment tools are what round out that bargain. The failure to make secure the right will in fact lead to less productions, as creators will not continue to produce, nor make available what is produced.
This in my mind would then lead to a situation where creations are a production of large well capitalized corporations. This results in fewer rights holders, aggregating more properties. Where competition and price slide to antitrust issues.
Let me tell you I spent two years in a very intense photography program, where we were each given the same art directive, and compelled to shoot the same subject, based on the same approximate angle, camera lenses, and lighting plan, every day of the week due on the same day the following week. Then each student was required to mount on museum board their assignment, and put it on the critique-board, where upon each image was then critiqued by every student and the professor.
Now we each had to set the shot from scratch, not just walk up and load the 4X5 with a piece of film. The outcome….out of 30 images…. I never once saw the same image…they were all, the same subject…but each photographer added to the assignment his interpolation of the art directive. We all made distinct choices, in the exact angle of the camera and the various angles of the lighting sets, within the approximate angles that were assigned. As well as color and composition choices with in the set of the subject, and any elements that were added in as supporting cast. Now we each had to then process and print our film in the school dark rooms, where we again made additional choices as to the push/pull, temp-controls that change the density and contrast of the base film, as well as make the final print, using controls that we use under the enlarger….burning & dodging, contrast controls, masking, and paper choices.
Guess what, each photographer earned his copyright, and I would bet that in a court each photographer would only get the "Thin Monopoly" as intended under the copyright law, if one tried to claim infringement by the other
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thin Monoply does not equal a true monoply
After reading and reflecting on the story at digital native. I wonder is it morals that are changing or is that society is changing so fast, that we can't instill in those coming up those values that help people to make decisions based on fairness?
What is fairness now and how will it change in the future? Do we accept it as the new moral code? How will it translate to the many additional laws of society that we all depend on?
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/digitalnatives/2008/06/20/digital-natives-by-a-digital-native-fr om-germany/
To speak more generally (and not simply about German youth), teenagers at large don’t have an understanding of copyright and ownership of digital goods. They want to share, want to mix, and want to edit. They can’t understand why it is not okay to go to Wikipedia, print a page, and use it for a speech. Anyway, that’s how they still do it. Most of their created presentations are totally or partly rip-offs and plagiarism. But teachers – especially the older ones – simply fail to discover them, and so it’s not punished, and there are no consequences for the students. Although they know it’s illegal, they do it, just because they can and because they know nothing else. Besides the school-related illegal sharing, there are of course downloading and sharing of songs, movies and other stuff. I don’t know whether that is because students do not have the needed money for buying every interesting movie or just because those things are too expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thin Monoply does not equal a true monoply
Huh? What do morals or fairness have to do with it, when those who embrace it make both themselves and the consumers of their content better off?
If everyone is better off, then morals don't even come into play.
To speak more generally (and not simply about German youth), teenagers at large don’t have an understanding of copyright and ownership of digital goods.
Don't be insulting. Have you talked to kids these days? Many of them very much understand it. They just don't think it makes any sense.
They want to share, want to mix, and want to edit.
Yes. What's wrong with that? That's a good thing. They want to collaborate, create and communicate. We should encourage that.
They can’t understand why it is not okay to go to Wikipedia, print a page, and use it for a speech.
Why is that not okay?
Although they know it’s illegal, they do it, just because they can and because they know nothing else.
No. It's not that they "know nothing else." It's that they recognize that if they can build on the works of others, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Society was developed on priciple of those that came before
Yet more to ponder...it seems Mike is upfront on what the trend is. But I question what the effects on society are and really will be?
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article4144585.ece The average digital music player carries 1,770 songs, meaning that 48 per cent of the collection is copied illegally. The proportion of illegally downloaded tracks rises to 61 per cent among 14 to 17-year-olds. In addition, 14 per cent of CDs (one in seven) in a young person's collection are copied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Society was developed on priciple of those that came before
I'll leave aside questions as to the accuracy of those statistics, the foundation of them, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahhahaha
It just dawned on me....the kids rule the roost....not because it's right...but because the parents don't have the time to give their children.
It all just became clear when you read the comments at the link below.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article4144585.e ce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hahhahaha
In my experience, talking directly to teenagers, they "get" technology WAY BETTER than us older folks. Yes, I can out code them, build more technically correct websites, run a better/cleaner/safer desktop...but when it comes to application of the technological tools (twitter, facebook, IM, SMS, P2P, Second Life, yada-yada-yada), they are much better networked and make big leaps between the social and informational uses of these technologies.
Please don't take one article on one website and the comments of that one article by one very statistically biased audience as "proof" of your biases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hahhahaha
Lloyd, you have made some sweeping comments about society and large groups of individuals without providing much proof.
mobi....go read http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080625/0111221510#c465
Then re-read my post here http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080625/0111221510#c649 and then follow and read the link in that post.
You will quickly see the error of your way, and after Mike does the same, he to shall.
Now if you really desire to understand my position read here , all of it http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/gender-and-copyright.html
In all I try not to Cheerlead my position on any...I just ponder questions, that go a little deeper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]