Blogger Who Uploaded GNR Album Pleads Guilty, Accepts Deal
from the still-ridiculous dept
The blogger who uploaded the latest Guns N' Roses album, Chinese Democracy, and who was then arrested has apparently agreed to a plea bargain in the case. Prosecutors had already dropped the charges from a felony to a misdemeanor, and the plea deal probably means he'll get off without too much punishment -- but the whole thing still seems fairly ridiculous. It's not at all clear why the FBI wasted taxpayer money chasing down a fan who simply helped promote the music. In the end, it seems like GNR basically got tax-payer funded promotion for its latest album, while causing significant stress in the life of the guy who was in the middle of all of this. What a joke.
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: guilty, guns n' roses, music, uploads
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is it possible that a blogger consistently understands the industry better than than all those people who work in it and make their living there ?.
I just read you original article - what a farce : the "fan"put the album online in some promotion attempt (presumably by making the album available for people to download and listen to), and it was only when GNR provoked the publicity that downloading took off .... so techdirt conclude it's GNR's fault that copyright violation took place !!! - get a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Use of straw men makes it difficult to have a discussion on this kind of topic, let's keep to what's actually been said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
GNR struggled to understand fan base and keeping fans happy back in the 80's and 90's. After all those years of frying his brains on Booz, porn, drugs, and real women, there isn't much of a chance that Axl has it figured out now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Defies even the weakest of math skills don't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, he did help GNR promote the album. After all, we're indirectly talking about GNR's new album here. But that doesn't justify that he stole and illegally distributed the music.
Now, if you want to argue that the music biz simply needs to wake up and change their business model, I'm all with you guys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
TechDirt has several different issues with the whole "RIAA vs Everybody Else" situation:
A) It doesn't make BUSINESS sense from the perspective of the artist.
B) Most artists don't realize they no longer NEED a *recording* industry, even small time ones.
C) Copyright Infringement is a CIVIL issue, but is being treated as a felonious crime (such as rape or murder) by law enforcement.
D) Such treatment of copyright infringement borders on unconstitutional and in general is questionable on the grounds that TAX PAYER money is used for private litigation between an abusive and well funded professional legal team and college students.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He made an unauthorized COPY of something. For this, you think the FBI should be engaged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The THEFT
So, what he did was the equivalent of entering private property, hands empty. If his action was to make a copy of something on that was kept in a location out of public view on private property, that copy remains the property of the owner and was not his to take. He gained it illegally. Once he left the property with a copy that was not his in the first place, he STOLE that COPY, and is therefore a THIEF.
The initial crime remains theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it isn't. Some people just want free stuff. You have to look at it case by case. For instance, in this case the fan posted a few tracks originally in order to show how "awesome" they were.
Also, an interesting correlation: the sales numbers dramatically increased once the arrest was announced and the news articles pointed to torrents for the album.
"Is it possible that a blogger consistently understands the industry better than than all those people who work in it and make their living there ?."
Yes. It's called perspective. When you are on the outside looking in you are sometimes given to more insight. You can objectively look at what has happened in the past (the whole "hindsight" thing) and more readily see where things are going wrong currently.
The people IN the industry tend to do things because "that is how you do things" in that industry. Change is more easily made by outside factors focusing in, rather than trying to force a change from within.
"I just read you original article - what a farce : the "fan"put the album online in some promotion attempt (presumably by making the album available for people to download and listen to), and it was only when GNR provoked the publicity that downloading took off .... so techdirt conclude it's GNR's fault that copyright violation took place !!! - get a clue."
And you need to take a reading comprehension class if you jumped to that conclusion.
If you bothered to really read the articles, the biggest complaint TechDirt had was the fact that TAX PAYER money was being used to track down a copyright infringer. The FBI, who are supposed to investigate CRIMINAL activity, were investigating a CIVIL dispute.
If you bothered to actually read this blog ever you'd know the biggest complaint they have is that CIVIL issues are unconstitutionally being made CRIMINAL issues, and the Federal Government is being made to act as private investigators for Big Media.
You can't go tell me that if it was some indie band rather than GNR the FBI would of been investigating it, or that we'd even hear about it. Fact is, this sort of thing only happens when big media companies are involved.
So to use your own words: get a clue. You very obviously have issues understanding what people write, and do nothing but help those that wish to see the government corrupted further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Civil smivil. The blogger violated federal laws, and the U.S. Attorney used the law enforcement agency that investigates federal crimes to locate the blogger. Is there also a civil matter? Possibly so, but the federal people involved were dealing with the violation of federal laws, not civil laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little far fetch, Techdirt...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little far fetch, Techdirt...
What is argued is that (a) this did not justify the use of FBI resources and (b) that the desires of the copyright holder are wrong-headed.
Note: this does NOT make the unauthorized copying okay.
However, if the copyright-holder had a clue they'd realize that what this individual did was a favor and thus should not be considered wrong...but the copyright holder is in their right to be wrong-headed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Little far fetch, Techdirt...
What is argued is that (a) this did not justify the use of FBI resources and (b) that the desires of the copyright holder are wrong-headed.
(A) What next? Are you going to tell the police department not to arrest shoplifters because there are more important things to do? Law enforcement nevers enforces all the laws all the time because the resources do not exist. Until you head the FBI, I suspect that they will continue to prioritize the crimes they focus on.
(B) I think your desires are wrong-headed too, but guess what? Desires are equivalent to opinions and they are a right guaranteed under the Constitution. The desires of the copyright holder are just as right as your desires, and potentially more so in this case because criminal laws under THEFT and copyright infringement supported the copyright holder.
As a side note, the copyright holder may be completely out of the story at this point. There is evidence of a crime independent of any complaint by the copyright holder. The Feds can prosecute on that basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What really shocks me here is...
After all, it appears these songs violate national security to which the FBI had to be involved. I wonder if the lyrics contain messages to overthrow the government.
At any rate, I totally agree this whole thing was a fiasco. Not by the FBI getting involved, but by the idiot stupid enough to post an album online which wasn't even released yet.
NOW the RIAA has a case to which to proceed with, which is what they're paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft is more than "free promotion"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft is more than
You can argue as long as you want that GNR is stupid, behind the times, killing their own business, etc. IT'S STILL THEIR CHOICE TO MAKE.
Your right is to try to persuade them to change, not to make their choice for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft is more than
I have never seen Mike argue otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
The first thing I thought was, "Holy crap, that was fast!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then the government diverted X million of my taxpayer dollars from national security to track this guy down for what is now a misdemeanor. Can you imagine how much money it would take for the FBI to get involved in every civil case in this country? There is no victim here, people are out money if anything. That is a civil case.
I think that is what we are arguing. So if we could get past people agreeing that he did something wrong, which we all agree he did... even the article.
I'm fine with GNR prosecuting this fan into oblivian and ruining his life if they want to. I'm sure the RIAA will make a case that he owes Eleventy billion dollars in settlement. They should pay the taxpayer back first though, since we all had to pay to get the FBI involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft
If you read papers on the subject of first sale, in theory the first sale of an item (and this one had yet to be sold) is in theory equal to the value of all subsequent sales. I struggle with this theory quite a bit, but the result is that this individual stole something that could potentially be worth millions. Ergo, it was a felony.
As to why the FBI was involved, I am unable to say. However, it was clearly a crime of significant magnitude, and a law enforcement agency dealt with it as they would any other felony where the item stolen was worth millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft
He also didn't make a dime on releasing it. So I don't know that first sale doctrine applies. There is obviously a case for damages in stealing someone else’s copyrighted material. However it doesn't go beyond that. If he had walked into the production plant, stolen a physical copy off the line, and then reproduced it X million times for sale on Ebay I think this would be a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft
He was originally charged with a FELONY.
Either way, it is a civil case.
I am sure you did not mean to say this. Felony or misdemeanor, both are CRIMINAL offenses, NOT civil. Indeed, reducing the CRIMINAL charges for his FEDERAL offense from felony to misdemeanor merely means that his maximum prison time goes from 5 years to 1 year.
He also didn't make a dime on releasing it.
Many burglars never get a chance to spend the money they steal, but that still makes them eligible for prison time.
Incidentally, what kind of law do you practice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The first thing I thought was, "Holy crap, that was fast!"'
Hehe, yeah... guilty here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GNR- Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GNR - Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI involvement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI involvement
This case was, and has been from the start, a civil copyright protection case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FBI involvement
...and proof of that is where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT THEFT - NOT STEALING
It is copyright infringement. The case is over copyright infringement, not theft. He took the music, sure, but does GNR still have their music? Yup. It is copyright infringement. The courts have stated this many times. Calling it theft does not help the discussion and just makes one appear slightly ignorant or like you are purposely trying to spread disinformation.
As for you saying it is GNR choice for what business model to use, and that he is messing it up, you do realize everything else that is going on right? They are still releasing the discs. They will probably still do concerts. I would say his release has not changed their business model at all. Everything they were planning on doing before this leak, they are still doing. So your argument about being able to choose a business model is kind of moot. It is not like they are saying "ohmigawd a leak online, don't release any cds, we quit life". Not to mention, the internet has been around awhile now. This whole music downloading from internet thing had been around awhile now. If their business model WAS banked on it never being online (which it wasn't) then I would just call them stupid to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THEFT FIRST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THEFT FIRST
Later on, you call it copyright infringement.
Your lack of knowledge of the difference between the two is absolutely astounding.
There are some criminal copyright infringement laws. And I doubt he broke these, but whatever, that is for the courts to decide.
However, it still is not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
Question: How did this person obtain files that were unavailable to the public? If he HACKED into someones computer illegally, and if he TOOK information from that computer that he was unauthorized to TAKE, then he arrived at the computer "empty-handed," so to speak, and left with something that he did not bring with him, thus he took or STOLE something.
I called his action THEFT because that was what the investigation was originally directed to. Clearly, when someone goes onto or into someone else's property, and takes something from that person's property that they did not have when they arrived at that property, and they did so unauthorized, then they are a THIEF. The FBI was unable to determine whether the blogger was a THIEF, so they charged him for the CRIME they could prove, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT of U.S. federal laws.
Furthermore, the guy has already essentially pled GUILTY, so he clearly realized that the EVIDENCE of his CRIME was supported BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. So, you may doubt all you wish, but that is what the COURTS decided, and what the blogger agreed to.
Someone broke into something somewhere, took information that did not belong to them, and they committed
THEFT THEFT THEFT THEFT THEFT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
You can call it theft all you want, but even the court system disagrees with you on that one.
Hacking into a computer is quite different from walking into somebody's house. That is why you will get hit with different laws when you walk away from either scenario with something when you arrived empty handed.
Again, call if theft if that helps you sleep at night, but the courts disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
You should look stuff up before you post.
U.S. Court of Appeals (seems like a court to me) called the copying of data from computers "information theft."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/5W1FFXPR.pdf
The USDOJ convicted a man for "data theft," to use the DOJ's words:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/scottPlea.pdf
A nice definition of data theft and its illegality:
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/d/datathef.htm
Here is yet another federal court that notes on page 5 that the government sought to "...prove that Levine benefitted financially from the stealing of Acxiom data."
Again, deny that COURTS call these actions theft if it allows you to live in your little dream world, BUT COURTS DISAGREE WITH YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
Link two, it is about stealing peoples credit card information, and using it for monetary gain.
Link three, do you realize that even in the definition you link, it still does not support your argument? Data Theft by its own definition on the site you linked states that it is about people's personal information and other Confidential stuff. Nowhere does it say it is data theft if it is intended to be released to the public for all to hear. Whether they intend to charge or not is a whole different matter, but once out, it is out for all (even if it requires purchase).
A large difference between everything you linked to, and this case, is that this guy did not seek out financial benefit from doing this. In each and every case you link to, it has nothing what so ever to do with copying music. Not a thing. About the only possible shred of hope in your entire arguement is that the CD wasn't "public" yet. Also, even in your last link in the next post (#47) that too is about stealing financial information with an intent to profit from it.
If you are going to try to tell me the courts disagree with me, please come back with links regarding people copying music, and not stealing financial information with an intent to profit.
Actually, hold on here, you do realize we are talking about copying a music cd and sharing it, and not stealing credit card numbers right? I just have to check because you seem pretty convinced of your side. Which is wrong with regards to copying music. However would be pretty darn accurate if we were talking about stealing financial and personal information, which is entirely what you linked to.
Or maybe you just need to look it up before you post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
Your comment appeared to me to be saying that courts did not say that copying of data, regardless of what that data is (music is data, personal information is data, anything stored as 1's and 0's is data), is data theft. I did not differentiate between musical data and any other kind of data.
Now, if you wish me to make a distinction between two types of data, I will, but why would a court treat one kind of data any different than any other kind of data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
Lol, good point. Lots of people have their phone number in a book. Social Security numbers also happen to be an identifying number. Since both are just electronic, by your logic it is safe to say that their SSN should be public info?
The courts treat them differently for very good reasons. Some are meant to be kept private, while other types the artist specifically want people to see and / or hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
On the contrary. I think if I do not want my telephone number in a book, then I do not want it to be public any more than I want my SSN to be public.
The courts treat them differently for very good reasons. Some are meant to be kept private, while other types the artist specifically want people to see and / or hear.
However, in this case the artist specifically DID NOT WANT people to hear the music because it had yet to be released to the public. Someone STOLE the artists' data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
Quoting myself:
"The courts treat them differently for very good reasons. Some are meant to be kept private, while other types the artist specifically want people to see and / or hear."
Adding on:
Now, they may see things from a close minded perspective and want to restrict specific avenues which everybody can see and hear it, but that is their perogative. If they want to act like a-holes though, it is well within their right. I will always go and support the artists who want their stuff heard, and try to avoid jerks like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
Sorry, I missed including the last link:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/477/477.F3d.596.06-1628.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THEFT FIRST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
If the FBI was unaware that the songs were available on bittorent for months before the blogger released them, I can easily see them investigating whether he was the first person to obtain those songs. I can also see why they switched to copyright infringement. Likely their investigation determined that the songs were on bittorent and a case for anything other than copyright infringement was going nowhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
I can also see why they switched to copyright infringement.
Sooo, they aren't going after him for data theft?
Oh yah, thats right, its because he never stole anything.
And you even stated that you can see why.
So why do you absolutely insist on calling it theft then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
I insisted on calling it THEFT because he was originally questioned as to how he got the illegally obtained DATA. To use the Department of Justice's own words, they were investigating DATA THEFT.
You claim that "he never stole anything." WRONG. The correct statement is that the Department of Justice was unable to make a case for DATA THEFT. Had they been able to make a case for DATA THEFT, I am sure they would have prosecuting him for that CRIME.
Lack of evidence does not equate to lack of guilt.
Why do you insist on calling theft of data anything other than what it is? What would you call illegally obtaining data or information that did not belong to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
Here in America we operate on an innocent until proven guilty system.
The only people who see it otherwise is the RIAA and their ilk.
Just because somebody got investigated for something doesn't automatically make them guilty. All the evidence is there that he committed copyright infringement. That is what they are hitting him with.
"The Los Angeles man arrested on accusations that he uploaded nine pre-released Guns N' Roses songs from the upcoming Chinese Democracy album has agreed to plead guilty to one federal count of copyright infringement as part of a deal"
Point served.
I am done trying to explain the difference between theft and copyright infringement to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
Here in America we operate on an innocent until proven guilty system.
The only people who see it otherwise is the RIAA and their ilk.
I never said anything contrary to your statement (except I never said anything at all about the RIAA). All I said was that they were unable to prove that he stole the data.
Just because somebody got investigated for something doesn't automatically make them guilty.
Your point? This is legal 101. Neither does it make them innocent.
All the evidence is there that he committed copyright infringement. That is what they are hitting him with.
I think that is what I have been saying.
"The Los Angeles man arrested on accusations that he uploaded nine pre-released Guns N' Roses songs from the upcoming Chinese Democracy album has agreed to plead guilty to one federal count of copyright infringement as part of a deal"
Point served.
As a result of an investigation that was also seeking to learn how the data theft originally occurred. Apparently the case was going nowhere fast and the U.S. Attorney realized that he had more important things to do than locating and prosecuting someone for stealing the data of a music group.
I am done trying to explain the difference between theft and copyright infringement to you.
I know the difference. However, you still do not recognize that data can be stolen, even though about 34 states and several countries do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
also:
"Lack of evidence does not equate to lack of guilt."
Now you are just plain lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
Liar is a very harsh word, and given my attempts to be careful and accurate in my phraseology, is libelous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: THEFT FIRST
According to p2pnet.net, Eric Garland states that the songs were unavailable until the songs were posted on the blogger's site. See the story at:
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16972
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Only Joke is AXLE!
Its not GNR by any means. Where is Slash, Duff, Matt? That's who GnR is.
Axle is a pompass ass who probably paid off this guy to do this as no one will really buy this album.
As for the use of tax payer money... well these things will only change when people get off their duffs and start getting involved in their elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal
Now there can be -- and obviously is -- a real debate about the wisdom of the current copyright laws, and that gets played out on this blog all the time. But unless and until the laws are actually changed, what this dude did was a federal crime.
Nor does the fact that very few infringers are ever prosecuted criminally make any difference -- it's the same with respect to most other bodies of law that have both civil and criminal provisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok Lonnie, Last Post
I will just point out that I did refute your "supporting" court documents. You are claiming that stealing financial information is the same as copying music. That is not true. The courts have stated a difference. You never linked to another court case to show where they labeled copying music as stealing. All you did was say "they agree". I know many court cases have been linked to on techdirt in threads you have read and commented on, that pointed out that it was copyright infringement. You have also contradicted yourself many times.
Whichever friend of yours is the AC there, has not read my rebuttals.
I see Lonnie's point, copying music is theft. There is just no proof of it. And his support comes from areas that do not deal with copying music. That is why I believe he is wrong. He has shown no real support pertaining to copying music.
I will always be willing to accept the title of stubborn when it comes to standing up for the truth. Until you link to actual court documents that were not overturned, and that state that copying music is theft, I am no longer listening because all you are doing is trolling.
You consistently state falsehoods. Trying to say that copyright infringement is theft, when there is a pretty clear difference. And when I point out fallacies in your logic with regards to your so called supporting court cases, you don't even respond to it. That sir, is a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok Lonnie, Last Post
Early on in your post, you call it theft.
Later on, you call it copyright infringement.
Lonnie's Reply:
Question: How did this person obtain files that were unavailable to the public? If he HACKED into someones computer illegally, and if he TOOK information from that computer that he was unauthorized to TAKE, then he arrived at the computer "empty-handed," so to speak, and left with something that he did not bring with him, thus he took or STOLE something.
Killer Tofu's Reply:
You can call it theft all you want, but even the court system disagrees with you on that one.
Hacking into a computer is quite different from walking into somebody's house. That is why you will get hit with different laws when you walk away from either scenario with something when you arrived empty handed.
Again, call if theft if that helps you sleep at night, but the courts disagree with you.
Note that YOU said specifically, "...you will get hit with different laws when you walk away from either scenario with something when you arrived empty handed. Again, call it theft if that helps you sleep at night, but the courts disagree with you." I was NOT specifically talking about music, I was talking about INFORMATION, of which music is one type of INFORMATION, that was stored on a computer inaccessible to the public. You may have assumed music only, but I was specifically speaking of INFORMATION, or the roughly equivalent term, DATA.
Lonnie's Reply:
So, what he did was the equivalent of entering private property, hands empty. If his action was to make a copy of something on that was kept in a location out of public view on private property, that copy remains the property of the owner and was not his to take. He gained it illegally. Once he left the property with a copy that was not his in the first place, he STOLE that COPY, and is therefore a THIEF.
I also provided a number of references where courts called the illegal accessing of information "information theft" or "data theft."
In the first reference, the court specifically states on the bottom of page 14 and top of page 15:
"Moreover, given the novelty of the legal questions posed by information exposure and theft..."
In English, this sentence is called a parallel construction, and could also be read:
"Moreover, given the novelty of the legal questions posed by information exposure and information theft..."
The second reference pointed to a "data theft." Now, the particular type of data theft happened to be personal information that was illegally gained by hacking into a computer (sort of like what happened to obtain the Guns 'n Roses music), but the illegal COPYING of information was called by the COURT (recalling that you denied that courts ever called the copying of data or information "theft"), "data theft."
The third reference in fact supports the contentions I have made all along, though you claim that it argues against my contentions. You said the definition of data theft was theft of any confidential information. Well, the UNRELEASED Guns 'n Roses music was CONFIDENTIAL as the group had not planned to release any of the music (which I believe was actually unfinished versions) at the time it was illegally STOLEN. Let's do sanity check. The data (music) was not publicly available and was therefore confidential, was illegally copied or taken from a business or other individual. Let me double check. Yep, that fits the definition perfectly.
As for my fourth reference, I included it because it was all about copying of files, and the courts used similar language multiple times. For example:
"...stealing of Axciom data..."
"...by the number of files Levine was convicted of stealing...
"...the data taken from Axciom..."
Killer Tofu's Reply (reply 48):
To summarize your comments, I believe you say with respect to "information theft": "...not once does it ever say "information theft." With respect to the definition, you a statement about data theft being related to "...other Confidential stuff." I agree. One type of "Confidential stuff" would be unreleased music tracks.
You also throw in a non sequitur regarding financial gain. I care little for whether the guy stood to gain financially. The blogger's financial gain is irrelevant. I am more interested in two things. First, the illegal violation of the rights of the band to privacy. Second, the compromise of confidential information of the band.
Then you attempt to change subjects by claiming (I think) that music stored on a computer is not "data" or "information." If that was your intent, then I guess I am speechless. I would be interested to know what other types of information, er, data, er, non-information, non-data you can store on a computer that could be illegally accessed.
Lonnie's Reply:
Your comment appeared to me to be saying that courts did not say that copying of data, regardless of what that data is (music is data, personal information is data, anything stored as 1's and 0's is data), is data theft. I did not differentiate between musical data and any other kind of data.
Now, if you wish me to make a distinction between two types of data, I will, but why would a court treat one kind of data any different than any other kind of data?
Killer Tofu's Reply:
Lol, good point. Lots of people have their phone number in a book. Social Security numbers also happen to be an identifying number. Since both are just electronic, by your logic it is safe to say that their SSN should be public info?
The courts treat them differently for very good reasons. Some are meant to be kept private, while other types the artist specifically want people to see and / or hear.
Lonnie's Reply:
On the contrary. I think if I do not want my telephone number in a book, then I do not want it to be public any more than I want my SSN to be public.
However, in this case the artist specifically DID NOT WANT people to hear the music because it had yet to be released to the public. Someone STOLE the artists' data.
Now, with respect to your Last Post:
I will just point out that I did refute your "supporting" court documents. You are claiming that stealing financial information is the same as copying music. That is not true. The courts have stated a difference.
No, I stated that courts called the illegal taking of information from computers "theft." I fail to recall you supporting your final statement, "The courts have stated a difference." Back it up. Show me one court case where someone was tried for stealing unreleased music where the court called it something other than "stealing," "taking" or "theft."
You never linked to another court case to show where they labeled copying music as stealing.
That is correct. My point was that the illegal copying of confidential data or information from a computer is theft. Does it matter what the data or information is?
All you did was say "they agree". I know many court cases have been linked to on techdirt in threads you have read and commented on, that pointed out that it was copyright infringement.
Once the music is in the public domain, illegally downloading the music is copyright infringement. I am glad we both agree on something. However, before the music is in the public domain, it is merely confidential data or information.
You have also contradicted yourself many times.
Well, I apologize for any contradictions. I did not see any in perusing this string, but as complex as my answers have had to be in response to your comments, it is possible.
I see Lonnie's point, copying music is theft.
Okay, here is a problem. I never said "copying music is theft." Read back over my comments. What I said was, and I will put this seperately so there is little confusion here:
When you make a copy of confidential information or data and you take possession of that copy, that is theft.
There is just no proof of it. And his support comes from areas that do not deal with copying music. That is why I believe he is wrong. He has shown no real support pertaining to copying music.
Except, we are not really talking about copying music, are we? We are talking about someone going into your home, either physically or electronically, and accessing files that are stored on your computer, and making copies of those files. Does it matter at all what is in those files? For all I know, you have racy pictures, music files, detailed financial information, a list of every girl you have ever kissed (or guy), a list of comics in your collection, or whatever. I do not care. But that information is not in the public domain and it would be stealing to take those files from you, regardless of what they are, unless I had your permission.
You consistently state falsehoods. Trying to say that copyright infringement is theft, when there is a pretty clear difference.
Sigh...copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If music has been released, and someone makes a copy of a released song, that is copyright infringement. We have already covered theft a bunch of times. You accuse me of not listening, but you do the same thing.
And when I point out fallacies in your logic with regards to your so called supporting court cases, you don't even respond to it. That sir, is a troll.
Responded, in detail. Trolling over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really a troll.
Just an ignorant person who likes to lump all types of crimes into large sweeping generalizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Troll
I find it worrisome that people somehow think it is okay for people to access files on someone's computer without permission and make copies of those files. Now, I also think that people should be more careful with their computers, but that is a separate issue. But, I fail to see how anyone under any logical scenario thinks it is okay to make a copy of information on your computer without permission and take it with them. If that is true, then think of the effect that will have on many things. Police would no longer need a search warrant to access your files. People could peep into your computer, if they have the ability to do so. Brrrr....scary.
If someone came into my home and copied the files on my computer, whether they entered physically or electronically, and that taking was illegal, then I would be calling that taking stealing my data.
Please, consider what I said and tell me that you are against people illegally gaining access to someone's electronic files and making copies of non-public information, regardless of what that information may be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay Lonnie
I was still focusing on music even when you wanted to jump to all types of data.
The oringal post was about music. My replies are quite valid, with regards to music.
So I suppose we do agree.
And your arguments do make much more sense when music is not included as the focus.
Although, I believe I did acknowledge that different laws and rules apply when talking about something other than music.
And not a troll, I took the time to amend that statement to say no troll. You do not really display the characteristics of a troll. Part of the things that make you not a troll is your willingness to discuss, and you actually linked to stuff that supported your argument, even if I feel it was off topic.
With regards to music, I am still sure I am pretty on spot. With regards to other types of data, or data meant to be confidential, yah, you were pretty on spot on as well, but I felt I was pointing out how they are different from music.
I just disagree with calling it theft just because the CD was not released yet. It not being released is what bumped this up from a civil copyright infringement to criminal copyright infringement. That is the basis for my disagreement over that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay Lonnie
I just disagree with calling it theft just because the CD was not released yet. It not being released is what bumped this up from a civil copyright infringement to criminal copyright infringement. That is the basis for my disagreement over that point..
Ouch. Okay. I put forward my best argument, and I have been unable to sway your opinion. Similarly, you have been unable to sway mine. I guess that is where we are at. We both have our opinions and reasons for believing them.
While it has been an interesting discussion, it seems that we have come to a stopping point.
Thanks for bearing with me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]