Chilling Effects: Another Mixtape Provider Shut Down

Japanese Group Asks Google To Shut Down Street View

How Many More Ways Can Axl Rose Piss Off Fans?

from the keep-trying dept

Fri, Dec 19th 2008 10:41am — Mike Masnick

Axl Rose of Guns N' Roses has a funny way of trying to sell his album: his strategy seems to basically revolve around pissing off fans who want to interact with the music. There's been plenty of coverage over the arrest and subsequent guilty plea of a blogger who was actually doing a fantastic job of promoting the new album by leaking it online. Since then, Rose has apparently been unwilling to do much to actually promote the album, other than putting angry rants on various websites. The latest is that he's apparently threatening legal action against Activision for including some GNR songs in Guitar Hero. Apparently no one pointed out to Rose that having songs in Guitar Hero tends to help sell more albums. And, that would be useful for Rose right now, as reports are that his long-awaited album has been a tremendous flop. So, once again, it's worth pointing out that the last thing any musician wants to do these days is appear to be anti-fan.

Hide this

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: axl rose, fans, guitar hero, guns n' roses
Companies: activision

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Lonnie E. Holder, 19 Dec 2008 @ 11:21am

Was that the criminal blogger...?
I thought the so-called blogger who was "promoting" the album did so after hacking into a server and then stealing unreleased songs and posting them on line. I also thought the songs were in some cases in a raw form and of poor quality.

Did his illegal activities, which are federal crimes (the government really gets peeved when people illegally hack computers, even if they are doing someone a "favor") and may or may not have anything to do with GNR, promote the album, even though it was unreleased when he performed his criminal acts? It appears it may have. It also appears that downloads of his illegally obtained songs increased after his arrest.

However, regardless of the promotion value, etc., the guy hacked into someone's computer illegally. Everything after that is noise to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 11:34am

"...tends to help sell more albums..."

Is there objective data available that is in consonance with the above? Just curious if this has some sort of a factual basis or is more anectodal in nature.

Common sense does suggest that more people may become interested in the music contained in the program, but is there data to actually back up more albums being sold as a result?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cryix, 19 Dec 2008 @ 11:54am

This is techdirt, where all attention is good attention, especially if it involves people going outside standard channels using the internet.

This guy stole from GNR and then made their product available for free on the internet. Even if 50% of the people who downloaded it went out and bought the album after that, but that still leaves 50% of people who got something for nothing.

And at the same time, while Axle is being kind of pissy, you really dont know the whole scoop about what activision did with their songs in guitar hero. If they haven't been compensated properly, or at all, then he has every right to complain, even if it translated into 200k song sales.

If someone breaks into my house and paints my walls and it looks great, does that mean they shouldnt be arrested for breaking in, even if i benefited from it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 19 Dec 2008 @ 12:00pm

Re:
I've heard that you can see the increase in sales on iTunes the same/next day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 12:05pm

Does Axl actually still have any fans?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 12:10pm

who?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 12:17pm

Re:
If someone breaks into my house and paints my walls and it looks great, does that mean they shouldnt be arrested for breaking in, even if i benefited from it?

Yes, if you live in San Francisco. They'll probably dust and rearrange the furniture, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kdun, 19 Dec 2008 @ 12:18pm

Re:
You are right on... And the Overhaulin show should be arrested for grand theft auto for stealing someone's car and completely rebuilding it. And the insiders should be arrested for conspiracy. Come on!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 19 Dec 2008 @ 12:31pm

Re:
This guy stole from GNR and then made their product available for free on the internet.

Copying, even illegal copying, isn't theft.

Even if 50% of the people who downloaded it went out and bought the album after that, but that still leaves 50% of people who got something for nothing.

Okay, but that's a net gain - higher sales, and you didn't lose anything to the people that didn't pay.

And at the same time, while Axle is being kind of pissy, you really dont know the whole scoop about what activision did with their songs in guitar hero. If they haven't been compensated properly, or at all, then he has every right to complain, even if it translated into 200k song sales

You can complain about anything - but it doesn't make sense to complain about something that's beneficial.

If someone breaks into my house and paints my walls and it looks great, does that mean they shouldnt be arrested for breaking in

That's an argument against breaking into a computer system, not against leveraging non-scarce resources like digital music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 12:41pm

sales are definitely boosted due to the games:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2008-02-14-guitar-hero-effect_N.htm

and while i don't claim to know the legal details of what licensing rights were and were not acquired, i would point out that Axl Rose lent his single Shackler's Revenge off his new album to Rock Band 2, the direct competitor of Guitar Hero. It would seem he would have a business reason in slamming the competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 19 Dec 2008 @ 12:42pm

Re:
If someone breaks into my house and paints my walls and it looks great, does that mean they shouldnt be arrested for breaking in, even if i benefited from it?

legally, sure. but you'd be a complete dick for doing so, just like axl rose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cecil Green, 19 Dec 2008 @ 12:48pm

Axl smashes phones when he gets frustrated. That's so cool...

I dunno, maybe he smashes 'pooters nowadays. Stomp on that bitch!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Slash, 19 Dec 2008 @ 12:50pm

I'll never work with him again.
Axl's a dick, and you guys will never know the whole truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven Adler, 19 Dec 2008 @ 1:00pm

Slash! Whassup Man!
You got any smack? I'm hurtin' real bad. I talked to Izzy yesterday and he said he stopped by Buckethead's place and you left your bag over there. Gimme a shout back, dood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ehrichweiss, 19 Dec 2008 @ 1:11pm

he could try...
making yet another piece of boring garbage that they'll inevitably call metal or "punk"....or worse, they could tour.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 19 Dec 2008 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re:
This guy stole from GNR and then made their product available for free on the internet.

Copying, even illegal copying, isn't theft.

This statement is your opinion, and not law. At least 34 states and several European countries define the illegal acquisition of data from a computer as "data theft." The U.S. has yet to have a national law dealing with data theft, but I suspect that it will come eventually.

I got into this argument with someone over at againstmonopoly.org, who then proceeded to explain to me how a digitally saved song is not data. Oh well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 1:26pm

Re: Was that the criminal blogger...?
"the government really gets peeved when people illegally hack computers"

1. Because they do not like competition
2. Is there such a thing as legal hacking
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 1:36pm

Re: Re:
Yes, if you live in San Francisco. They'll probably dust and rearrange the furniture, too.

You forgot burnishing the parquet floor, along with the ska tickets that they'll leave next to the fishtank.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 19 Dec 2008 @ 1:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
This statement is your opinion, and not law. At least 34 states and several European countries define the illegal acquisition of data from a computer as "data theft."

This statement is based on the definition of the word "theft", which involves the taking of property and thereby depriving the rightful owner.

I got into this argument with someone over at againstmonopoly.org, who then proceeded to explain to me how a digitally saved song is not data. Oh well...

Um, ok.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ronald, 19 Dec 2008 @ 1:49pm

I don't agree
Giving out free copies of something isn't promoting it. Anyone who receives such a "promo" has a complete digital copy of the record, and has less of an incentive to buy it, unless they feel like donating money to David Geffen and Best Buy.

I've heard you make this argument time and time again. If free music really induces people to buy more music, then why have we been seeing declining record sales ever since music could be freely downloaded online?

You note that the album has been freely available online. You note that it did not sell as well as hoped. Is it not at least plausible to say that the album is selling poorly, at least in part, because by the time it came out everyone already had it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lucretious, 19 Dec 2008 @ 1:55pm

I don't get it, wouldn't Activision need permission from the songs publisher in order to include it in the game? Why is he bitching and threatening legal action?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rosetta Stoned, 19 Dec 2008 @ 1:55pm

Re: Re:
If someone breaks into my house and paints my walls and it looks great, does that mean they shouldnt be arrested for breaking in, even if i benefited from it?

Yes, if you live in San Francisco. They'll probably dust and rearrange the furniture, too.

And if you accidentally walk in on the SF house painters in the middle of their dastardly act, they'll style your hair and do your nails too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Resident Yenta, 19 Dec 2008 @ 2:04pm

makes Yenta go hmmmm
why would SF be the only place when one thinks of the gay community, granted I had to chuckle over the remarks. Being the parent of a gay MAN who is married to another MAN. They wouldn't see the humor...Just an obsevation. Oh BTW Axl Rose is a used up hack
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Mook (profile), 19 Dec 2008 @ 2:06pm

Re: I don't agree
What you're missing is Mike's (and others') continual assertion that the only way musicians and record companies are going to make money in the digital age is to give the music away for free (advertising) while selling their "brand" (t-shirts and concert tickets) since infringers/thieves aren't willing to pay for the music they want.

Xenu would approve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Mook (profile), 19 Dec 2008 @ 2:08pm

Re: makes Yenta go hmmmm
Obviously these people have never visited midtown Memphis.

Hail Xenu!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TPBer, 19 Dec 2008 @ 2:10pm

Pre Released DL
I got the album right after it showed up on TPB. After listening to it I immediately deleted from my drive, it was that bad. IT'S NOT WORTH IT EVEN FOR FREE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 2:33pm

Re: I don't agree
did you ever think the album sucked and that's why its not selling well?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 19 Dec 2008 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
This statement is your opinion, and not law. At least 34 states and several European countries define the illegal acquisition of data from a computer as "data theft."

This statement is based on the definition of the word "theft", which involves the taking of property and thereby depriving the rightful owner.

Well, apparently a bunch of states and countries have decided that the legal definition of the word "theft" includes hacking into someone's computer, making a copy of the data, and taking the copy with you...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Axl Rose, 19 Dec 2008 @ 2:43pm

I'M GONNA BRING YOU DOWN... HUH.
Well well well, my Michelle wannabeez. None of you, no, not even Slash nor Steven Adler understand me and my motives. You guys remember that snake in the Patience video? I gave that snake to Slash. I... I eee I eee I eee YEAH! Slash -- you owe me money, you mudblood! I'll stomp on yer fone!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mslade, 19 Dec 2008 @ 2:47pm

Re: Re:
You can complain about anything - but it doesn't make sense to complain about something that's beneficial.
That's soft business. You can complain about something that's beneficial if you deserve more than you got.

Would you rather have $x,000 in increased sales, or $x,000 plus the licensing fees for having your song in Guitar Hero? Remember, if GH is using their song, it means there is a demand for it. Demand GnR did not get compensated for, except as auxiliary profits.

We can go back and forth all day with analogies between physical object theft and digital media / idea theft, but at the end of the day it's really simple:

GnR put time and effort into creating a thing. Somebody else is using that thing to profit off GnR's demand. A lawsuit is in order, that's why we have them.

Anything else (Look at all the sales it's giving them!) is extraneous details.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Axl Rose, 19 Dec 2008 @ 2:52pm

You guys remember when I had that crutch?
and I was on stage and using the crutch like a mic stand? Remember? I invented that. Remember how I'd wear spandex sometimes and a kilt other times? I invented doing that. And now I've finally gotten my new album out and you guys are jealous of my mad crutch-mic-stand skillz.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 19 Dec 2008 @ 4:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, apparently a bunch of states and countries have decided that the legal definition of the word "theft" includes hacking into someone's computer, making a copy of the data, and taking the copy with you

Which is an inaccurate description of the offense, because it doesn't meet the actual definition of theft. Legal definitions have the luxury of not having to conform to the normal rules of the language, nor of being accurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Langford, 19 Dec 2008 @ 4:16pm

They don't WANT anyone to hear it...
Because it sucks. And I LIKE Guns n Roses... well I used to...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 19 Dec 2008 @ 4:35pm

Re: Re: Re:
That's soft business. You can complain about something that's beneficial if you deserve more than you got.

"Deserve" is entirely subjective - while there's certainly a legal requirement for them to be paid for each copy, it's an entirely different argument to claim that they deserve to be compensated for each copy.

Would you rather have $x,000 in increased sales, or $x,000 plus the licensing fees for having your song in Guitar Hero? Remember, if GH is using their song, it means there is a demand for it.

And it also means that including their song in Guitar Hero can increase demand for that song. So GNR should be paying the makers of Guitar Hero in turn for the publicity.

Anything else (Look at all the sales it's giving them!) is extraneous details.

So basically, you just want to pretend the benefits don't really exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 4:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are correct about how "theft" has traditionally been defined under what is known as "common law", i.e., law developed by courts dating back to England.

However, "theft" is also subject to change in definition by legislative act.

It is through legislation that many states have expanded the traditional definition "theft" to also include what is sometimes also referred to as "computer theft".

It can be quite confusing I will admit. Under federal copyright law unauthorized acts in both civil and criminal actions are characterized as "infringments". Unfortunately, this is clouded to some degree by other federal laws that use the word "theft" versus "infringement". Under state laws there are some that have expanded their definitions to unclude unauthorized copying under their "theft" statutes.

In the final analysis it is really much ado about nothing, because no matter what the act is called it is still potentially subject to criminal and civil liability. Importantly, in a civil matter a plaintiff and defendant are typically fighting over money damages. In a criminal matter it is the sovereign (state or federal) that is involved in an action against an alleged wrongdoer. Money damages are not involved since the sovereign is not the rights holder. What is, of course, involved is enforcement of duly enacted law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 19 Dec 2008 @ 4:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I think it does meet the standard of theft. I have yet to look this up, but I think the logic is along the line of trade secret theft.

I have data that is unavailable to the public, therefore it is secret.

You copy my data and take the data with you (I still maintain that if you leave with something that you did not have before you arrived that you stole it, but that is a separate issue).

You have taken the secrecy that I had before you came and criminally stole my data.

I like the word theft. It seems appropriate to the nature of the crime. When you go to prison for data theft, I hope they put you in a cell with Bubba Johnson...he likes fresh meat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phil McCraken, 19 Dec 2008 @ 4:53pm

GNR
seriously, why are we even talking about this GNR is dead, Axle is the only member of the band and is using the name to sell records, it's not GNR anymore, besides the album sucks huge...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mslade, 19 Dec 2008 @ 5:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Deserve" is entirely subjective - while there's certainly a legal requirement for them to be paid for each copy, it's an entirely different argument to claim that they deserve to be compensated for each copy.

Agree on all counts. I'm not talking about copies of their music, I'm referring to Guitar Hero. Sorry for being vague here.

And it also means that including their song in Guitar Hero can increase demand for that song. So GNR should be paying the makers of Guitar Hero in turn for the publicity.

Yes, if that is what GH and GnR agreed upon. But instead, as I understand it (my argument fails if I'm wrong here :P) GH used GnR's music without consulting them. It's actually frequent in B2B, especially in marketing, that it's not clear which side should be paying whom.

So yeah -- I'm not a GnR fan, to me they seem to be a bit worn out. They are probably going to benefit more from GH since it can introduce a young crowd to their music.

The key here is that (again, my argument fails if this is wrong) GnR wasn't consulted. Their music was just taken and used because GH recognized that it was valuable. Value was taken from GnR's creation and GH profits from that.

So basically, you just want to pretend the benefits don't really exist.

Of course not. They exist, but that doesn't justify taking something GnR created without their permission. No amount of benefits justify it. My logic is simple: what if GnR doesn't want to sell more albums? What if their goal instead is to release a quiet little album for their old fans? Nevermind that this is highly unlikely. But what if that were the case? Taking it a step further, what if the members of GnR really hate Guitar Hero? By saying "The benefits make it okay", you're undermining their right to say "I hate Guitar Hero, I think it's ruining the music culture, and I don't want them to profit off my music".

To be perfectly clear, nobody is entitled to control how their PUBLISHED content is enjoyed by individuals, etc. But they should by all means retain full control over how other entities PROFIT off of their created content.

But then, perhaps I'm on the wrong website to make that assertion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 19 Dec 2008 @ 5:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The key here is that (again, my argument fails if this is wrong) GnR wasn't consulted.

Since Slash appeared in the game, it's more along the lines that Axl wasn't consulted. I know Axl owns the name, but since Geffen was able to release an album with their hits without his permission, I'm not sure if Axl actually has any say in the matter or if he's just posturing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 19 Dec 2008 @ 5:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the final analysis it is really much ado about nothing, because no matter what the act is called it is still potentially subject to criminal and civil liability.

Exactly the point. Since they're both illegal, why not use a description that actually describes the offense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mslade, 19 Dec 2008 @ 5:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh. Well in that case, he's just a douche :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 19 Dec 2008 @ 5:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You copy my data and take the data with you (I still maintain that if you leave with something that you did not have before you arrived that you stole it, but that is a separate issue).

It isn't, but I'll leave well enough alone I suppose.

You have taken the secrecy that I had before you came and criminally stole my data.

So the data was copied, and the secrecy was stolen....yeah, sure - subbing one "stolen" intangible for another. As I've said before, saying that such an offense isn't theft doesn't make it right, excuse it, or any of the other myriad reasons people throw up whenever the distinction is made. It means it's different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 19 Dec 2008 @ 6:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may think it is different, but again, legally, it is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
adrienne, 19 Dec 2008 @ 7:49pm

Re: I don't agree
Is it not at least plausible to say that the album is selling poorly, at least in part, because by the time it came out everyone already had it? It's not selling because it's garbage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 8:34pm

Re: Was that the criminal blogger...?
"I thought the so-called blogger who was "promoting" the album did so after hacking into a server and then stealing unreleased songs and posting them on line."

So after he stole them did GNR ever get them back?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 8:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly the point. Since they're both illegal, why not use a description that actually describes the offense?
Calling it "theft" and "stealing" is a dishonest tactic designed to exaggerate the offense. Like calling a copyright infringer a "pirate". Go hang out in the waters off the coast of Somalia if you want to meet a real pirate. It won't be some kid making a mix tape of his favorite songs.

Likewise, someplace could pass a law against spitting on the sidewalk and title the offense "baby rape". But just because they called it that would not make it so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 9:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still maintain that if you leave with something that you did not have before you arrived that you stole it...

Well Lonnie, you're leaving here with information you didn't have before. Therefore, by your own argument, you are a thief.

When you go to prison for data theft, I hope they put you in a cell with Bubba Johnson...he likes fresh meat.

He's waiting just for you, Lonnie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 9:04pm

Re: Re: Re:
The U.S. has yet to have a national law dealing with data theft, but I suspect that it will come eventually.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that copyright infringement isn't theft. I think that pretty much covers the U.S. on a national basis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 9:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By saying "The benefits make it okay", you're undermining their right to say "I hate Guitar Hero, I think it's ruining the music culture, and I don't want them to profit off my music".
No, they can still say that. But saying something and enforcing your will are two different things.

To be perfectly clear, nobody is entitled to control how their PUBLISHED content is enjoyed by individuals, etc. But they should by all means retain full control over how other entities PROFIT off of their created content.
You seem to be unfamiliar with copyright law. Copyright infringement applies to noncommercial situations as well. Profit is not a requirement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Resident Yenta, 20 Dec 2008 @ 12:07am

wow
this has been the most axl rose has seen his name in print
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2008 @ 4:22am

Though choice for money hungry performers: be anti-fan or be anti-label. Well, not so tough, since GNR have no fans left.

Most of music these days is made to separate teenagers from their parents' money. Adults hardly listen to music anymore (lack of time, lack of interest), and when they do, it's something old, proven.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2008 @ 7:51am

Although there have been attempts to make copyright infringement a criminal matter, it was my understanding that these attempts had failed.

As a tax payer, I do not think my monetary contribution to society should be wasted in the pursuit of those who infringe upon copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 20 Dec 2008 @ 9:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, copyright infringement does nothing when it comes to stealing data that is unavailable to the public. Other nations and many states have categorized such criminal taking theft, and there have been moves in Congress to similarly categorize such takings.

It may be that copyright infringement is not theft. But going into a computer that you do not own, making a copy of the data on that computer, and leaving with the copy is stealing no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it. You arrived with hands empty, you leave with hands full...stealing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Neverhood, 20 Dec 2008 @ 9:35am

Axel is on drugs
I was at a concert with Guns N Roses about 2 years ago. Their minds are so far gone in their drug use that you have to see it to believe it. Ozzy Osbourne looks like a hyperactive Nobel laureate in comparison.

After coming 1½ hour late to their own concert, there was like 10 or 15 min. "breaks" several times during the concert where most of the band members, including Axel, was just standing and doing nothing, looking at thin air, and nobody had any idea about what was going on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Barrenwaste, 20 Dec 2008 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't define a crime in that manner. I do not own the computer that I am currently using. That said, I am required to make copies of data on it and leave with that data. By your definition I am required to be a thief. Nothing is black and white. Those who seek to put everything into a good and evil context are doomed to failure and frustration.

Every action has differences and each difference changes the nature of the action. It is illegal to kill, unless you do so in defense of your own life and the lives of your family. You have to look at what was done, why it was done, and how it was done. The one size fits all laws that the governments tout about these days are unjust in the extreme. Making more specific laws will help little, if at all, as the system is far to complex for the average citizen to understand as it is.

Not only that, but different social groups have different mores regarding the same actions. When a person is raised to think a certain way, simply telling that person that they must change or pay you money will only make them angry. You must sit down, look at things from their perspective, get them to see yours, and work from there.

Nothing is as simple as right and wrong, and in attempting to make it so, you actually make it even more complex than it is. Because you then wander into the territory of violating the accused, either through wrongful pursuit or unjust punishment.

It is all a balance, and in this, the U.S. fails miserably.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Regan, 20 Dec 2008 @ 3:51pm

It's All In The Game
1. Writer writes lyrics.
2. Composer adds music.
3. Vocalist adds vocals.
4. Arranger hires additional musicians to provide orchestration.
5. Producer and Director and Manager add percentages for their expertise in coordinating above.
6. Studio adds hourly charges for allowing above activities using their equipment and facilities.
7. Technicians create "masters" and send to factory.
8. Factory produces CDs.
9. Distributors deliver CDs to retail stores.
10.Promoters send hype to radio station PMs and Variety and Billboard to create artificial demand for CD.
11.Retailers add markup and sell to customers.
12.If customer tells friend about songs, OK. If they make copy for friend, attorney will sue them for deprivation of profits or violations of usage restrictions.

Add more steps if DVD is also made, or if performer makes tour to promote sales of CDs or DVDs.

To perpetuate this expensive system, it is necessary to KEEP it intact. If it is possible to cut out the studio or the factory or the distributor, and allow a PROFIT to be made by increasing volume by selling the product for ten percent of the usual retail price, then more attorneys must be hired to squelch any such attempt.

Cash flow if more important than net profits, control of factories and contracts and tens of thousands of "essential" employees is more important than making a product available to MORE listeners at a CHEAPER price by cutting out all kinds of superfluous steps, processes, and stages.

I went to the store today and saw "previously viewed" DVDs for sale which were actually brand NEW COUNTERFEITS. The same Chinese manufacturers who are contacting with the "big boys" to make their CDs and DVDs are selling them out the back door for 25% of the retail price, yet the industry concentrates on harassing their customers (the fans and buyers of their products) instead of going after their so-called "partners" in crime.

I guess by the same logic, Universities, when they sell season football tickets in bulk, will restrict the seat they "own" to only the purchaser. They will not allow you to buy 12 tickets and let you and your co-worker take turns sitting in the seat during different games.

What is this world coming to? Screw the customer is apparently the modern way of doing business, since Capitalism has become so shareholder centered and so anti-customer.

Now might be a good time for EVERYBODY to stop buying CDs and DVDs from the big four. That should put them out of business, or make them more compliant and reasonable. We are witnessing "union-busting" going on at GMC right now. Maybe it's time for some "music industry busting" now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2008 @ 5:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, copyright infringement does nothing when it comes to stealing data that is unavailable to the public.
That's just not true. Copyright infringement is an offense whether the work is publicly available or not.

Other nations and many states have categorized such criminal taking theft, and there have been moves in Congress to similarly categorize such takings.

That's a pretty lame argument. Other nations also have laws making practicing religions other than Islam a criminal offense. Do you think that means the US should too? And as to "moves in Congress", well, your buddies in the copyright industry have been trying that for a long time.

But going into a computer that you do not own, making a copy of the data on that computer, and leaving with the copy is stealing no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it. You arrived with hands empty, you leave with hands full...stealing.
Lonnie, do you own Techdirt's servers? If not, then you've just described yourself as a thief. Talk about spin, I think you just spun out there. What a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 20 Dec 2008 @ 6:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Barrenwaste:

Yes, I missed one teensy detail, and that is the aspect of permission or invitation. If the taking is unauthorized, either explicitly or implicitly, therein lies the crime. Such crime is amplified by hacking into a protected computer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 20 Dec 2008 @ 6:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC:

Except I missed on detail, and that is the explicit or implicit invitation or permission to take said data, which exists in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 20 Dec 2008 @ 6:27pm

Re:
Copyright infringement is a civil matter in the United States (not so in some other countries). However, data theft, which is the unlawful copying or removal of data from a computer (i.e., without permission or authorization), is a crime in 34 states and several countries. Such taking is not considered copyright infringement.

When I was a child, I was taught that taking something that did not belong to me was stealing. I think that standard remains a good one, even when applied to digital data.

You can spray air freshener on a turd, but it will still be a turd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2008 @ 7:09pm

Re: Re:
"When I was a child, I was taught that taking something that did not belong to me was stealing. I think that standard remains a good one, even when applied to digital data."

When I was a child I was never taught that copying was stealing.

"You can spray air freshener on a turd, but it will still be a turd."

That's just your own BS that you're smelling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2008 @ 7:14pm

Re: Re:
However, data theft, which is the unlawful copying or removal of data from a computer (i.e., without permission or authorization), is a crime in 34 states and several countries.

You keeping saying that 34 states define unauthorized data access as theft. Please provide specific citations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 20 Dec 2008 @ 8:01pm

Re: Re: Re:
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/Wernick_Dec06.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2008 @ 9:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/Wernick_Dec06.pdf

Are you serious? An article from some health industry association basically saying that 34 states have data breach notification laws? Nowhere does it say that any of them have amended their criminal theft statutes to include data breaches. But I guess you couldn't cite any specific laws if those laws don't exist, could you?

What, you thought no one would check? Think again. You completely misrepresented what the article was about and I'm afraid your dishonesty has now pretty much wiped out any credibility you may have had.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
axl is a tool but..., 21 Dec 2008 @ 12:48am

Re: Re:
>This guy stole from GNR and then made their product
>available for free on the internet.

>>Copying, even illegal copying, isn't theft.

I believe that there is a significant difference when the product/item/property in question was not actually released. The "stealing" was the result of the dude breaking into a system to steal the tracks. So the actual act of how he did it makes it stealing via Breaking and Entering/trespassing/or however else you want to label it.

The "stealing" was not created by person "A" purchasing a copy of the music then letting persons "B-Z" copy it off their hard drive because they're a nice guy. That's Copying.

ALSO:

I've seen studies done showing how music in Video games increases sales. Not everyone wants to put a Playstation in their car and play it for 45 minutes while they get to that one part of the game where that one song was played so that they can hear it while they start their road trip. Consequently we go out to purchase the music.

Can someone show me an actual study that shows how "pirating/copying" (depending which side of the coin you're on) music leads to further record sales? By my account, if we did not have this massively easy way to share music via internet or even CD copy, the only way that I could get the actual music would be to a)steal it from a store. b)purchase the cd for myself. c)make a sh!tty copy from FM radio playback.

Taking away the "pirating/copying" methods of duplication in question out there by big music companies the only way I see each and every one of us getting our hands on the music is if we go and purchase the CD. That would seem to be 100% of interested & capable people purchasing the music in that scenario.

Someone prove me wrong here with someone actual facts (minus the hypotheticals) or studies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 6:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
o If you had actually read the article, you would have discovered that the scope of the laws varies from state to state, and many of the laws have severe criminal penalties for stealing of data.

o If you go out and look at some of the court cases that have been prosecuted under these laws (I would have been happy to provide references, but since you wish to be an ass, I am about done with you), you will note that the judges in such cases refer to the taking or copying of data as data theft.

o Beyond Data Theft laws, when prosecuting theft of trade secrets it is also common for courts to refer to theft of trade secrets, regardless of whether it was written or in a computer, as theft of trade secret data.

Have a good day, insulting jerk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 7:01am

Re: Re: Re:
You have it correct. The original hacking into the computer and taking of data was theft. Everything after that was probably receipt of stolen goods and piracy.

I am still wondering what laws the guy was charged under. I have been presuming either anti-hacker laws or trade secret laws (you, know, the ones covering theft of secret data), but I do not know for sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 7:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obnoxious Jerk:

Some references for you to help you in your education:

http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/d/datathef.htm

Oh my, here is a man charged in California with data theft...I guess those bogus data theft laws that are killing my credibility must be really fictional...

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9115385&intsrc=hm_list

I guess the English are helping participate in my lack of credibility by calling for tougher data theft laws...

http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8069

Here is a lovely discussion about adding the theft of data in India as a crime, which would be a good move.

http://www.articlesbase.com/cyber-law-articles/data-theft-in-cyber-space-issues-and-laws-56 1270.html

Incidentally, the reporting requirement that many states have refers to data breaches, which is defined as, among other things, the unlawful acquisition of data; i.e., data theft. Hmmmm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 9:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Merely FYI, a compendium of state laws pertaining to several of the points you have been discussing:

http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/statelaws.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 10:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous:

Thank you for the link. Here is a short section from California's laws:

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the
following acts is guilty of a public offense:

(2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of
any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or
copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or
external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.

Do I see that it is an offense under California law to access and take without permission data? Is that data theft? Seems like it to me.

The next time you (pardon me while I puke at your use of the word) check my "credibility," perhaps you should really check rather than just skimming a few words in an article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lonnie,
So now you're turning to a straw man argument to try save your credibility. Well, it won't work: no one claimed that unauthorized computer access wasn't illegal. But you've been claiming that it was covered under the theft statutes of "34 states". Now we see that it apparently isn't and you've been caught telling a big one. It's kind of funny watching you resort to name calling and vulgar language while trying to squirm out of it. Have a good day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 1:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Call the act whatever you will, but it does not change one iota the fact that making an unauthorized copy of a digital file (be it music, a movie, a photo, a book, software, etc.) is still illegal under many federal and state laws, which in many cases is a criminal matter besides just a civil matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 1:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Straw man? As far as I can tell, the California statute certainly states that taking of data is illegal. Period. Taking of data is theft. What more do you want?

Now, I could go through the laws of all the other states and see how many of them refer to the illegal taking of data, but why bother? Data theft is illegal in a bunch of states and a bunch of foreign countries. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 1:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the statutes that one of the previous Anonymous Coward's pointed to also have a notification requirement, however, the notification requirement is related to the theft of data, which is a separate offense.

I think the links provided above to the summary of computer statutes is quite an excellent resource.

So, to the anonymous coward who was gleefully pointing out whatever, who neglected to dig just a little further, and who is clearly wrong, data theft is illegal in a lot of places.

Can I help you with any of your other misunderstandings?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just for fun, I picked the very first state on the list, Alabama. Here is what the statute is titled and a portion of the statute:

CODE OF ALABAMA 1975
Copyright (c) 1977-1989 by State of Alabama. All rights reserved.
TITLE 13A. CRIMINAL CODE.
CHAPTER 8. OFFENSES INVOLVING THEFT.
ARTICLE 1. THEFT AND RELATED OFFENSES.

s 13A-8-102. Acts constituting offenses against intellectual property;
punishment.

(c) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or without
reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization, discloses, uses,
or takes data, COMPUTER programs, or supporting documentation residing or
existing internal or external to a COMPUTER, COMPUTER system, or COMPUTER
network commits an offense against intellectual property.

Okay, let us see what a strawman we have here:

o Theft Statute
o Theft statute covers data.

Ergo: Law in the state of Alabama for data theft.

How many more states do you want me to go through? Every time you respond, I will pick another state. Then, after I have gone through the theft statutes of all 34 states, I will start with foreign countries. Hell of a straw man, if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 21 Dec 2008 @ 4:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh my, here is a man charged in California with data theft...I guess those bogus data theft laws that are killing my credibility must be really fictional...

Except, despite what the article claims, he wasn't. After a little searching, I was able to locate what the actual charges were: 1 count of intentionally causing damage to a protected computer, and 4 counts of extortion. Not theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 4:45pm

Axel, you are washed up. Just bend over and take it up the ass just like Mr. Hands!!! Peace Out douche bag
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 4:46pm

Axel, you are washed up. Just bend over and take it up the ass just like Mr. Hands!!! Peace Out douche bag
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 4:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, I missed one teensy detail, and that is the aspect of permission or invitation."

What a mischaracterization. It may be only a "teensy detail" in your mind but it seems to me to make a huge difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 5:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except, despite what the article claims, he wasn't. After a little searching, I was able to locate what the actual charges were: 1 count of intentionally causing damage to a protected computer, and 4 counts of extortion. Not theft.
What, is Lonnie telling another one? Oh no, please tell me it isn't so!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 21 Dec 2008 @ 5:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's no point in continuing this...Lonnie's apparently unwilling to understand the distinction between a real definition and a legal definition. He'll just keep claiming that chapter titles constitute legal definitions for whatever country or state he selects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 5:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the state of Alaska, though here they call it theft of services if you take data without authorization...interesting concept:

TITLE 11. CRIMINAL LAW

CHAPTER 46. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
ARTICLE 1. THEFT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Alaska Stat. @ 11.46.200

SECTION 11.46.200. Theft of services.

(a) A person commits theft of services if

(1) the person obtains services, known by that person to be
available only for compensation, by deception, force, threat, or
other means to avoid payment for the services;

(2) having control over the disposition of services of others to
which the person is not entitled, the person knowingly diverts
those services to the person's own benefit or to the benefit of
another not entitled to them; or
(3) the person obtains the use of computer time, a computer
system, a computer program, a computer network, or any part of a
computer system or network, with reckless disregard that the use by
that person is unauthorized.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 5:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DanC:

The only "real" definitions with regard to the individual that hacked into the computer mentioned in the article is the legal one, because that is how he was charged. Any other definition has no bearing in any conversation other than a philosophical one. Go have a beer with your buds and talk about philosophy. The legal definition is the only important one and the only one that interests me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 5:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I notice how you didn't provide any links. Didn't want anyone to check again, did you? You should know better than that by now so I guess you must be a slow learner. Well, here's a link to 13A-8-102. I also noticed the cut and paste job you did to make it look like the particular law had "theft" in the title. The actual title appears to be "Offenses against intellectual property". But more importantly Section 13A-8-2, Theft of property - Definition reads as follows:

A person commits the crime of theft of property if he or she:

(1) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;

(2) Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;

(3) Knowingly obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly represented to the person by an agent of the law enforcement agency as being stolen; or

(4) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over any donated item left on the property of a charitable organization or in a drop box or trailer, or within 30 feet of a drop box or trailer, belonging to a charitable organization.

Notice the "with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property" part. You didn't mention that part, did you? Mere access or copying apparently isn't enough.

How many more states do you want me to go through? Every time you respond, I will pick another state.
Well, you're really not doing yourself and favors with examples like that. In fact, you're only digging yourself in deeper. But go ahead, post citations (actual links to laws this time, please) to support the notion that unauthorized data access is defined as theft in 34 states. You only have 34 to go.

Hell of a straw man, if you ask me.
Hey, something we agree on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 6:02pm

Theft
A girl once stole my heart, broke it and then burned the bridges between us. Could I have her charged with theft, vandalism and arson?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 6:15pm

Once, Twice,...
Lonnie,
Twice now you've misrepresented citations. You know what they say: "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Well, I have no intention of there being a third time. As such, I'm through following your deceptive wild goose chases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2008 @ 6:24pm

Re: Re: Re:
At least 34 states and several European countries define the illegal acquisition of data from a computer as "data theft." The U.S. has yet to have a national law dealing with data theft, but I suspect that it will come eventually.

Ohhh, can I play too?

Here's another way of looking at it. NONE of the 50 states have laws granting copyrights or patents. In fact, such laws only exist at the federal level and there have been "moves" to have those repealed. That has yet to happen, but I suspect that it will come eventually.

See how easy it is to play that game?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 6:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
hahaha...

You are so funny AC. ALL of chapter 8, meaning anything with the numeral "8" in the middle part of the code, is OFFENSES INVOLVING THEFT. Seems to me that both the sections you provided above are, therefore, OFFENSES INVOLVING THEFT.

You also neglected 13A-8-101. Definitions, which are the definitions for the section I quoted.

If you are going to combat me with facts, and accuse me of "cherry picking" portions of the code, at least you could get your facts straight.

Incidentally, here is a link to the correct portions of the code, since you seem to have difficulty finding them.

http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Alabama.txt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 6:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC:

None of those states have laws granting copyrights and patents because that is a right reserved to the Federal Government. However, the states can grant rights to all other things not covered by the federal government, and those 34 states have decided to cover data in various forms.

Copyrights and patents are extremely unlikely to be repealed because virtually every country has them. Until all countries agree to repeal them (like that will ever happen in the next several hundred years), they will likely all have them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 6:42pm

Re: Once, Twice,...
Really? How so? The citations I have you are both from sections on theft. The links are as follows:

Alabama:

http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Alabama.txt

Alaska:

http:// nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Alaska.txt

California:

http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/comp uterlaw/Californ.txt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 6:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Arizona does not call accessing and copying data "theft," they call it computer fraud. I like it. Nice alternative definition for theft.

Here is the code and the definitions that go with...

ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED
TITLE 13. CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 23. ORGANIZED CRIME AND FRAUD

s 13-2316. COMPUTER fraud; classification

A. A person commits COMPUTER fraud in the first degree by accessing, altering,
damaging or destroying without authorization any COMPUTER, COMPUTER system,
COMPUTER network, or any part of such COMPUTER, system or network, with the
intent to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive, or
control property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations or promises.
B. A person commits COMPUTER fraud in the second degree by intentionally and
without authorization accessing, altering, damaging or destroying any COMPUTER,
COMPUTER system or COMPUTER network or any COMPUTER software, program or data
contained in such COMPUTER, COMPUTER system or COMPUTER network.
C. COMPUTER fraud in the first degree is a class 3 felony. COMPUTER fraud in
the second degree is a class 6 felony.

E. For the purposes of s 13-2316:
1. "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in,
retrieve data from or otherwise make use of any resources of a COMPUTER,
COMPUTER system or COMPUTER network.
2. "COMPUTER" means an electronic device which performs logic, arithmetic or
memory functions by the manipulations of electronic or magnetic impulses and
includes all input, output, processing, storage, software or communication
facilities which are connected or related to such a device in a system or
network.
3. "COMPUTER network" means the interconnection of communication lines with a
COMPUTER through remote terminals or a complex consisting of two or more
interconnected COMPUTERS.
4. "COMPUTER program" means a series of instructions or statements, in a form
acceptable to a COMPUTER, which permits the functioning of a COMPUTER system in
a manner designed to provide appropriate products from such COMPUTER system.
5. "COMPUTER software" means a set of COMPUTER programs, procedures and
associated documentation concerned with the operation of a COMPUTER system.
6. "COMPUTER system" means a set of related, connected or unconnected COMPUTER
equipment, devices and softwares.
7. "Financial instrument" means any check, draft, money order, certificate of
deposit, letter of credit, bill of exchange, credit card or marketable security
or any other written instrument, as defined by s 13-2001, paragraph 7, which is
transferable for value.
8. "Property" means financial instruments, information, including
electronically produced data, COMPUTER software and programs in either machine
or human readable form, and anything of value, tangible or intangible.
9. "Services" includes COMPUTER time, data processing and storage functions.

And a link...

http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Arizona.txt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 7:05pm

Re: Once, Twice,...
Colorado makes unauthorized use of data "computer crime" as opposed to "theft." However, if you do the crime and it the loss of the crime is more than ten thousand dollars, it is a class 3 felony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 7:06pm

Re: Re: Once, Twice,...
Darn, forgot the link and the copy of the law...

http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Colorado.txt

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE

ARTICLE 5.5. COMPUTER CRIME

C.R.S. 18-5.5-102 (1990)

18-5.5-102. Computer crime

(1) Any person who knowingly uses any computer, computer system,
computer network, or any part thereof for the purpose of devising
or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud; obtaining money,
property, or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises; using the property or services of
another without authorization; or committing theft commits computer
crime.

(2) Any person who knowingly and without authorization uses,
alters, damages, or destroys any computer, computer system, or
computer network described in section 18-5.5-101 or any computer
software, program, documentation, or data contained in such
computer, computer system, or computer network commits computer
crime.

(3) If the loss, damage, or thing of value taken in violation of
this section is less than fifty dollars, computer crime is a class
3 misdemeanor; if fifty dollars or more but less than three hundred
dollars, computer crime is a class 2 misdemeanor; if three hundred
dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars, computer crime
is a class 5 felony; if ten thousand dollars or more, computer
crime is a class 3 felony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 7:15pm

Re: Once, Twice,...
Because I am generous, and it is Christmas, I give you this freebie...

Delaware calls obtaining data from a computer without authorization "theft of computer services." So, obtaining data illegally is theft. Hmmm...imagine that.

link:

http://mobile.delaware.gov/decode/title11/c005/sc03/page.php?sec=933

The law:

TITLE 11
Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Delaware Criminal Code
CHAPTER 5. SPECIFIC OFFENSES
Subchapter III. Offenses Involving Property
§ 933. Theft of computer services.

A person is guilty of the computer crime of theft of computer services when the person accesses or causes to be accessed or otherwise uses or causes to be used a computer system with the intent to obtain unauthorized computer services, computer software or data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 21 Dec 2008 @ 8:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any other definition has no bearing in any conversation other than a philosophical one. Go have a beer with your buds and talk about philosophy.

Theft involves the deprivation of property. If the owner isn't deprived of it, it isn't actually theft, regardless of whatever legal definitions you trudge up. The Supreme Court drew a distinction between infringement and theft in the Dowling case - I fail to see the relevance of whether the data was publicly available or not.

The legal definition is the only important one and the only one that interests me.

Ok, and you'll find places where it's defined as theft, and others where it isn't. Congratulations, there isn't a clear-cut legal definition one way or the other. Flooding the comments with examples is a pointless exercise, and is quite honestly childish. But by all means, if you feel the need to "win" the last post on the article contest, keep it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 21 Dec 2008 @ 8:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Arizona does not call accessing and copying data "theft," they call it computer fraud. I like it. Nice alternative definition for theft.

For someone that claims to only care about the legal definitions, you certainly seem more than willing to use your own custom ones when it suits your purposes. Fraud isn't theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 8:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, and you'll find places where it's defined as theft...

I made my point...I have no need to continue.

As for "deprivation," that is merely one definition of theft. The other way to look at theft is whether the individual left with something in his hand. Arrive empty handed, leave with hands full, theft occurred. It is irrelevant whether the owner was deprived of his property. By that logic, if someone "borrowed" the owner's car, and returned it, gas tank full, without the owner ever knowing, then that is not theft. Makes no sense.

The thief is also depriving the owner of deciding what he wants to do with his property, thus reducing the owner's freedom. It is possible that the owner never wanted to reveal the property to the world (his right), and now that is no longer a choice, depriving the owner of his property rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 21 Dec 2008 @ 8:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oops...my bad. I did not mean that "computer fraud" and "data theft" were synonomous. What I meant was that they called unauthorized access of data "computer fraud," which is a fine alternative rather than calling unauthorized retrieval of data "theft," particularly since they covered the broader aspects of merely accessing the computer without authorization rather than copying data from it. I think this alternative is quite fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chugging Charlie, 21 Dec 2008 @ 9:34pm

Gosh, Lonnie.

What happened to you to become such a turd in the last few days? Loose your job? Divorce? Dog run away? I feel like I'm watching an episode of "Retarded Policeman"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 21 Dec 2008 @ 9:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The other way to look at theft is whether the individual left with something in his hand. Arrive empty handed, leave with hands full, theft occurred.

That's an anecdotal definition at best, but nonetheless - using that definition, you would have to consider all copyright infringement as theft. And, as previously mentioned, the Supreme Court drew a distinction that the two offenses were not synonymous.

It is irrelevant whether the owner was deprived of his property. By that logic, if someone "borrowed" the owner's car, and returned it, gas tank full, without the owner ever knowing, then that is not theft. Makes no sense.

Sorry, your example doesn't fly. The owner of the car was still temporarily deprived of ownership, whether he was aware of it or not.

It is possible that the owner never wanted to reveal the property to the world (his right), and now that is no longer a choice, depriving the owner of his property rights.

His rights have been violated, not removed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nonymous caword, 22 Dec 2008 @ 8:25am

Re: Re:
I call Goodwin's Law on this thread...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 22 Dec 2008 @ 8:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dan:

I recall when I was a child that my parents taught me that taking something that did not belong to you (which had zero to do with depriving anyone of anything) was stealing. Someone stated earlier that there was a difference between a legal definition of stealing and a real definition of stealing. Taking something that is not yours is my real definition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 22 Dec 2008 @ 8:25pm

Re:
Chugging Charlie:

I think I am getting tired of fighting nonsense. You have a point, you state facts, and people sit there and claim you have lost credibility, are a liar, and worse. *sigh* I enjoy a little intellectual discussion, but when it degrades the way this one has, it is depressing and annoying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 22 Dec 2008 @ 8:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dan:

I had to do a little digging, but the parentally implanted definition of stealing that I gave you is biblically oriented.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=155
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2008 @ 9:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is a shame that doing the right thing and abiding by the law seems to fall prey to some who justify their actions by using the retort "they have a bad business model, and all I am doing is expressing my opinion by action".

I will give techdirt credit that it limits its comments to economics and does not approve of unauthorized copying. Unfortunately, some of its readers fail to see this important distinction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 23 Dec 2008 @ 1:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I recall when I was a child that my parents taught me that taking something that did not belong to you (which had zero to do with depriving anyone of anything) was stealing.

And I recall when I was a child that the common refrain from a student whose test had been cheated from was "he copied my anwers".

Trying to force the restrictions and definitions inherent with physical property on intellectual property doesn't make sense - they are different. While you can certainly pass legislation to treat them similarly, that doesn't change how IP actually behaves. The concept of property, and therefore theft, exist without a legal structure - IP does not. A different offense is needed to accurately describe a violation of the rights associated with IP, hence infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2008 @ 9:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I recall when I was a child that the common refrain from a student whose test had been cheated from was "he copied my anwers".

I heard many refrains, one of which was "He/She stole my answers." Of course, the defense immediately raised by the wrongdoer was "Your test taking model is inapt, and all I did was demonstrate this. You should be grateful for the lesson I have taught you."

Just some food for thought concerning "infinite goods" versus "finite goods". In the final analysis all property, whatever its character and form may take, is defined and enforced through duly enacted laws and the judiciary. There is no property that is "self executing" absent government support.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 23 Dec 2008 @ 10:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I heard many refrains, one of which was "He/She stole my answers."

Which is why anecdotal definitions are insufficient, which was my point in the first place.

Just some food for thought concerning "infinite goods" versus "finite goods". In the final analysis all property, whatever its character and form may take, is defined and enforced through duly enacted laws and the judiciary. There is no property that is "self executing" absent government support.

Disregarding the argument over whether intellectual works actually constitute property, I'm honestly confused by this assertion. While a government body can set the definitions on what can be owned and the punishments related to the violation of property rights, the simplistic idea of "this is mine" requires no government interference. In terms of physical property, the government simply refines the pre-existing concept.

This is not true for intellectual works, due to the fact that they are not diminished when shared. Copyrights and patents exist to restrict the natural state of intellectual work. Thus the concept of intellectual property is entirely reliant on the government for its existence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Erv Server, 23 Dec 2008 @ 12:04pm

GNR
I think the new GnR cd sux and I have filed it in the trash can
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 23 Dec 2008 @ 2:21pm

Taking what is not yours...
DanC:

I see. So it is not okay to take another child' bike, but it is okay to copy a story he wrote. I disagree. Regardless of whether it is tangible property or intellectual property, if the property is not yours, you should not take it. However, this restriction is only a legal one and a biblical one, so if you wish to flaunt laws and the bible, then I am unable to say much more to you.

I bet you are also a driver who thinks a stop sign means "slow down," turn signals are optional, and you finally turn your car lights on when it is so dark that even the owls are asleep.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 23 Dec 2008 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well AC, now we have a new excuse, courtesy of DanC, that being "Well, it is not like intellectual property is really property." To think that I have been accused of slippery slope arguments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 23 Dec 2008 @ 2:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC:

You are correct regarding property. I have seen those over at AgainstMonopoly.org argue that property rights have existed longer than intellectual property rights, but they are wrong. Modern concepts of property rights (essentially, transfers of title and individual ownership) have only existed since about the 15th century, which is about the time that intellectual property's modern concepts came into being.

Without law, all we have left is the right of force, and intellectual property is just as amenable to the right of force (as we have seen) as tangible property is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 23 Dec 2008 @ 2:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DanC:

In fact, intellectual works are diminished when shared. This is easily proven by Beanie Babies. When Beanies were scarce, they became highly valuable and collected. Once Ty began making Beanies in vast numbers, the value went down because the dolls were easily obtainable, and suddenly Beanie value dropped to the point where even Ty could not sell them profitably.

Intellectual property is the same way. Allowing unlimited copying of intellectual property diminishes its value.

Lastly, you are right that the concept of intellectual property is entirely reliant on the government for its existence, just as real property is. You can say that "this is mine" with respect to tangible property, until the guy with three friends comes along and throws you off the property, at which point the guy will say "this is mine," and it will eventually happen again. The rule of government has provided a formal definition of property rights and recognized that property transfers should be pieces of paper rather than a posse and a bunch of guns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 23 Dec 2008 @ 4:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well AC, now we have a new excuse, courtesy of DanC, that being "Well, it is not like intellectual property is really property." To think that I have been accused of slippery slope arguments.

Lonnie, it is legitimately a debatable point, but outside the scope of this discussion, which is why I only mentioned it in passing. That you seem to think it represents a slippery slope on my part simply means you don't understand my position.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 23 Dec 2008 @ 4:36pm

Re: Taking what is not yours...
if you wish to flaunt laws and the bible, then I am unable to say much more to you.

Since the topic doesn't really concern flaunting either, I'm not sure what the point is. The question was never whether what occurred was legal, it was whether it made sense (business or otherwise) for it to be illegal.

I bet you are also a driver who thinks a stop sign means "slow down," turn signals are optional, and you finally turn your car lights on when it is so dark that even the owls are asleep.

Gotta love meaningless and inaccurate conjecture based on an apparent misunderstanding of a person's viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 23 Dec 2008 @ 4:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, intellectual works are diminished when shared.

No, they aren't. Value is merely a property of the work, it is not the work itself.

Lastly, you are right that the concept of intellectual property is entirely reliant on the government for its existence, just as real property is.

You say you disagree with me, and then provide an example that shows I'm right. I'm officially confused.

You can say that "this is mine" with respect to tangible property, until the guy with three friends comes along and throws you off the property, at which point the guy will say "this is mine," and it will eventually happen again. The rule of government has provided a formal definition

Exactly right, and what I stated in my previous post. The government provided formal definitions and rules in regards to physical property - but the basic concept existed before the government. The same is not true for intellectual property.

I will be honest, I haven't run into this line of discussion before. Most people who will insist that intellectual works are property will invariably resort to Locke's theory of property. I'm not sure if that's your support for the argument, but Locke establishes early on in his theory that property exists in the absence of government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 23 Dec 2008 @ 6:49pm

Re: Taking what is not yours...
A few more thoughts....

So it is not okay to take another child' bike, but it is okay to copy a story he wrote. I disagree.

I particularly like the fact that you stuck with the example of a child to infer a moral dilemma with copying a story. It is not okay legally to copy the story, but there isn't really any moral issue.

While he should certainly receive credit for his authorship, saying that stories can be owned and should not be copied is contrary to common sense. Many folk tales, legends, tall tales, and other stories would not be in existence today without people copying, sharing, and embellishing them. To suggest that some grievous sin was committed by the copying and sharing of them is wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 23 Dec 2008 @ 7:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Forgot to add:

Intellectual property is the same way. Allowing unlimited copying of intellectual property diminishes its value.

So, in your opinion, are works in the public domain are worth less than works currently under copyright? Many people still find the King James Bible valuable, yet they could copy the entire thing for free if they so desired.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2008 @ 8:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mr. Holder captured the essence of my comment in his second paragraph at 112:

Without law, all we have left is the right of force

There are, of course, economic distinctions that can be made concerning tangible and intangible goods created by people. We do not, however, reside in a world driven solely by economics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 23 Dec 2008 @ 8:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The primary difference between he existence of property before government and after government enforced property rules was that property was owned informally. You "owned" property as long as you could hold it. In virtually all circumstances, the guy with the bigger force could "own" any property supposedly "owned" by someone else, until someone with greater force took the property from that person. Fundamentally, there was no real ownership of property, it was temporary possession of property until the next person came along and took it. You may call that ownership, I think that is far too refined of a term for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 23 Dec 2008 @ 8:45pm

Re: Re: Taking what is not yours...
Quite an interesting example you present regarding passing on stories. In fact, there was no "copying," because folk tales, legends, tall tales, etc., were verbal traditions passed on from generation to generation. It was only when these stories were written down that they attained protection. Even then, it was the exact story that attained such copyright protection. Even today there are numerous versions of Cinderella and Snow White, and many other folk tales and legends. The better of these tales advise the reader the origin of the tales and how they relate to other versions.

Even to this day authors embellish each others' stories and build on their realities. There have been an array of authors who have shared realities, and it works well. Certainly I think such possibilities should exist. However, copying the original stories on which these exist is morally wrong, particularly when, as in my example, one child copies another child's story, because the copying child will invariable claim the story was his or her own. Even if the child were to copy the original child's story and advise one and all that the story was someone else's, the child should get permission for the copying, or the child would still be morally wrong because he took a story that did not belong to him or her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 23 Dec 2008 @ 8:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The King James version of the bible has been without copyright for quite a long time.

Are works in the public domain worth less than works currently under copyright? Yes, for a variety of reasons. Fundamentally, an edition of "Robinson Crusoe," which deals with another era and is written in what we consider an archaic style, has minimal annual sales and its net economic worth is relatively insignificant. In fact, its value is truly marginal because several editions exist and each publisher competes to produce the lowest priced copy in an attempt to justify production of a couple of thousand books in an edition. Even so, it can take years to sell all the books in a single run of such a classic.

Furthermore, I doubt that Daniel Defoe is likely to write any more books, so royalties should be unexpected for a work that old.

On the other hand, a new book by Stephen King will undoubtedly sell several hundred thousand copies, and has a potential economic value in the millions in the first year of publication.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 24 Dec 2008 @ 4:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are, of course, economic distinctions that can be made concerning tangible and intangible goods created by people. We do not, however, reside in a world driven solely by economics.

True. But if you're saying that the only reason tangible and intangible goods are treated differently is due to economics, you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 24 Dec 2008 @ 6:25am

Re: Re: Re: Taking what is not yours...
It was only when these stories were written down that they attained protection.

So passing along a story ad infinatum is acceptable if done by the simple telling of the story, and morally reprehensible if done by the copying of text? A story is still intangible, so I fail to see how a fixed medium allows for the inclusion of some morality clause against copying it.

the child should get permission for the copying, or the child would still be morally wrong because he took a story that did not belong to him or her.

I have no desire to re-argue the point on whether "intellectual property" constitutes real property at the moment. It leads to me constantly correcting the misunderstandings, inaccurate analogies, and poor examples thrown up to misrepresent my position by the opposing side. Additionally, such a discussion would be even further off topic than we already are, which is why I have tried to avoid it in my previous comments on this article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 24 Dec 2008 @ 6:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking what is not yours...
So passing along a story ad infinatum is acceptable if done by the simple telling of the story, and morally reprehensible if done by the copying of text? A story is still intangible, so I fail to see how a fixed medium allows for the inclusion of some morality clause against copying it.

First, telling of stories has never been protected, by anyone, until such stories were recorded in a fixed media, including video, audio, print, or digital. So, yes, passing along a story ad infinitum in a verbal tradition is not only morally acceptable, in the morality of those societies with such traditions, it was a requirement of being the member of such a society.

However, society's rules changed with the fixing of print media, when society realized that uncontrolled copying of works led to undesired outcomes, the most dramatic being errors or inaccuracies between editions, and no one knew which edition was correct or at least "authorized."

Cultures evolve. Some societies still have oral traditions where "copying," or passing along of oral culture, is a requirement of the society. However, these societal norms are taught to the children of that society.

Other societies have societal norms that categorize certain behaviors as morally wrong, such as taking without permission what belongs to someone else. When you grow up into these societies those norms should be passed onto the next generation either by parental and educational teaching and by fixed laws.

Though you do not wish to get into a discussion on whether intellectual property is "real" property, I make only one comment. Legally, intellectual property is as "real" as any property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 24 Dec 2008 @ 7:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking what is not yours...
Legally, intellectual property is as "real" as any property.

In that you can own a patent or a copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2008 @ 8:26am

Re: Was that the criminal blogger...?
It also appears that downloads of his illegally obtained songs increased after his arrest.

Yay Streissand Effect!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
neh, 24 Dec 2008 @ 3:46pm

Re: Pre Released DL
I was a long time fan of GNR. But I have to say Axl shouldn't blame the internet for his low sales. I was pretty excited when I heard there was a new album coming out, but half way through hearing "Chinese Democracy" I turned it off, and wished they would have taken another 10 years to finish writing new songs. People aren't buying the new stuff because it sucks. there's plenty of artists that do quite well despite illegal downloads. Because their music isn't crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gurl next door, 25 Dec 2008 @ 3:01pm

Re: makes Yenta go hmmmm
YOU ARE ASSHOLES.ALL OF YOU.just because the whole usa doesn't like axl's new record does not mean he is a used up hack.does everyone else just love all of the music that you listen to?axl has alot of fans and the album is great and worth the wait.look around poeple.a real musician like Axl Rose is not going to come around for a very long time.listen to his music before you hop on the bandwagon because it's not the current trend anymore.EAT THEM BAD APPLES.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
True fan, 27 Dec 2008 @ 2:58am

Re: I'll never work with him again.
Your stupid. Slash would never blog on something so ignorant. You all know as well as i do (if your older than 12) that Appetite for Destruction is arguably the best album of all time. It is sheer genius. Yes all of the gunners are wealthy (except Steven it appears), but why not play again. A GNR reunion woul outsell any tour...anywhere. They would outdo Kiss, The Stones, The Who, and yes even immortal Metallica. Axl just happens to have the ability to speak his mind unlike many who do not. That is a tue rock star and one who makes his own rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2009 @ 7:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lonnie,
It's not the copying that makes it data theft, it's the transition of the data from being private to public that makes it data theft. (But even then, that's probably just a laymen's term, not the actual offense.)

Breaking into GNR's network and downloading unreleased songs = data theft

Downloading GNR's old albums from the web = copyright infringment
[ link to this | view in thread ]
veronica, 11 Jan 2009 @ 7:50am

????
Was that blogger that left all those comments going be the name, "DEXTER"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonnie E. Holder, 13 Jan 2009 @ 6:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC:

Correct. Hopefully I said this somewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2009 @ 6:53pm

Re: Was that the criminal blogger...?
You “thought”? From where are you getting this information? Mike doesn’t seem to be aware of this in his posts, nor is it in any of his links. As far as I know, all he did was post the songs, not hack any computers to get them. If I were more cynical, I’d claim you’re making this up in order to conflate copyright infringement and computer trespass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All the world need is Axl Rose, 5 Mar 2009 @ 3:37am

Re: Comment 3 By Cryix
Yeah man, love your conclusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]

Chilling Effects: Another Mixtape Provider Shut Down

Japanese Group Asks Google To Shut Down Street View

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...

Recent Stories

Friday
19:39	Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)

More

Tools & Services

Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports

Company

About Us
Advertising Policies
Privacy

Contact

Help & Feedback
Media Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story

More

Copia Institute
Insider Shop
Support Techdirt

Brought to you by Floor64

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.