Doesn't The FBI Have More Important Things To Do Than Chase Down The Guy Who Leaked The New Guns N' Roses Album?
from the just-wondering dept
There’s this whole “war on terror” thing going on out there, and you’d think that folks in the FBI would be pretty busy taking care of their role in that. But, apparently, some agents are busy trying to track down who leaked the latest Guns N’ Roses album online. Why? Well, because our various Attorneys General continue to think that music piracy really is funding terrorism while also a threat to our economy. However, it’s hard to believe that some random guy leaking an album is either going to have any impact on terrorism or on actual money made by Guns N’ Roses. The album was going to get online eventually. The fact that it was leaked isn’t going to change a thing about how much money the band makes. Yet, the FBI is apparently spending taxpayer money trying to track down the leaker.
Furthermore, it’s pretty obvious that the actual leaker was someone involved in the production of the album (who else would have a copy?). In fact, history has shown that insiders are responsible for plenty of entertainment industry leaks. If so, it would seem that this should be an internal issue, dealt with by the band, its record label and production staff, rather than involving the FBI, who if they must be policing infringement issues could at least go after ones that matter.
Filed Under: copyright, fbi, guns n' roses, music, pre-release
Comments on “Doesn't The FBI Have More Important Things To Do Than Chase Down The Guy Who Leaked The New Guns N' Roses Album?”
“Doesn’t The FBI Have More Important Things To Do Than Chase Down The Guy Who Leaked The New Guns N’ Roses Album?”
Well, there’s that whole “no-warrant surveillance” thing…
it's clearly relevant to their interests
Well obviously, Bin Laden is behind the leak, and it’s all part of a nefarious plan to rock our buildings into rubble, through hair metal.
Re: it's clearly relevant to their interests
That is the most true statement I have heard All Day we should ban all Music LOL
Re: it's clearly relevant to their interests
If that’s the plan, they’ll need to do FAR BETTER than Guns ‘N Roses – best GNR-based scenario: They put us to sleep.
Privy vs Theft
If you are privy to IP you have a right to publish it – irrespective of the wishes of others who are privy to it.
If you are not privy, you are an IP thief and should indeed be sought and apprehended by the FBI for such a heinous crime.
Re: Privy vs Theft
LMAO @ “heinous crime.”
I sure hope that was sarcasm. You did a poor job if that’s the effect you were after.
Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
“I sure hope that was sarcasm.”
I sure hope so too.
Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
Nope, not sarcasm. Possibly exaggeration.
However, it’s pretty despicable to steal an artist’s work and publish it such that the market for their considerable labour is almost completely destroyed.
This is the difference between IP nihilism and IP naturalism. Both abhor copyright. Only one abhors IP theft.
Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
You cannot steal thoughts. IP is just ideas and thoughts. Nothing physical to steal.
Tin foil hat, FTW
Re: Re: Re:2 Privy vs Theft
You know what IP stands for, right? “Intellectual Property.” Property can be stolen, which is why copyright was created to begin with.
Re: Re: Re:3 Privy vs Theft
You know what IP stands for, right? “Intellectual Property.” Property can be stolen, which is why copyright was created to begin with.
Um. No. IP does stand for that, but copyright wasn’t create to deal with “stealing.” It was created as an incentive structure.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458.shtml
Re: Re: Re:4 Privy vs Theft
“It was created as an incentive structure.”
I see…it was created as an incentive to encourage persons to craft “original works of authorship”, but that incentive did not contemplate that the exclusivity associated with it would ever be accompanied by enforcement mechanisms.
Re: Re: Re:5 Privy vs Theft
I see…it was created as an incentive to encourage persons to craft “original works of authorship”, but that incentive did not contemplate that the exclusivity associated with it would ever be accompanied by enforcement mechanisms.
It did contemplate exclusivity, as part of that incentive structure, but that does not mean it is the same thing as property, as was falsely stated by someone else. It is not the same as property in so many ways.
And, as for the enforcement mechanism, if anything, it should be a civil issue, not a criminal one.
Re: Re: Re:6 Privy vs Theft
“It is not the same as property in so many ways.”
I would insert the word “tangible” before “property”.
I also agree that it should be a civil matter, or at least limit the “criminality” to particularly egregious conduct (as used to be the case before copyright went off on a tangent).
Re: Re: Re:4 Privy vs Theft
Um.No. Mike,
Intellectual Productions of the mind were protected at common law, long before statues, by societal respect, and the shear cost and capital investment of duplication, and also by true monopolies by Kings, and Kings Men. Those true monopolies are what our constitutional drafters railed against. Yet they recognized the value in securing the right to intellectual productions, “Thin Monopolies”.
It’s hard to argue that the rights created by the bargain were not in fact the economic engine that propelled the industrial world. Yet as Bill said “But all property, I believe, is a set of societal relationships, and not dominion over things.” http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/gender-and-copyright.html We have no moral right to our real property nor personal property, we have a bargain such as in real property “the right to quiet enjoyment” fenced by statue, that protects that right.
If I take a picture of a goat, no one under copyright law is precluded of taking a picture of a goat…no monopoly, same for words, if I write a poem about a goat, it does not stop anyone from writing a poem about a goat….If I write and sing a song about a goat…well you get my point
Re: Re: Re:5 Privy vs Theft
Those true monopolies are what our constitutional drafters railed against. Yet they recognized the value in securing the right to intellectual productions, “Thin Monopolies”.
Yes, indeed. Back in the days before there was a real understanding of the unintended and harmful consequences of monopolies.
These days, we DO understand how monopolies are harmful.
It’s hard to argue that the rights created by the bargain were not in fact the economic engine that propelled the industrial world
Not hard at all when you look at the actual evidence.
If I take a picture of a goat, no one under copyright law is precluded of taking a picture of a goat…no monopoly, same for words, if I write a poem about a goat, it does not stop anyone from writing a poem about a goat….If I write and sing a song about a goat…well you get my point
But, if you take a picture of the goat, you are awarded a monopoly on that picture. You are awarded a monopoly on that poem.
What if someone else can do something to make those things better? Well, too bad.
And, since we live in a world where real production is built on those who came before us, everytime we limit what someone can do, or force them to reinvent the wheel, we make the overall system less efficient.
And that harms everyone.
Re: Re: Re:6 Privy vs Theft
“or force them to reinvent the wheel”
Don’t you really mean to say “or force them to invent a new kind of wheel”?
Re: Re: Re:7 Privy vs Theft
Well, that is what the system has devolved to. But in actuality, the patent system would allow me to “re-invent” the same wheel, so long as I used a different recipe. That is, the patent is on the process to come up with that wheel. If I come up with a separate process, then I am legally entitled to do so.
However, these days the concepts of “IP laws” get all mixed together and abused. People wrongly assume that “patents” should block my ability to develop that wheel entirely.
Re: Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
Do you have an example of when, using the internet, “an artist’s work [was published] such that the market for their considerable labour is almost completely destroyed?”
I can cite an artist who sold a million copies of his album in one week, just seven days ago, and this was after the album was leaked (and re-done) twice, and with the actual final version leaked a week and a half before the album came out.
I’m interested in where you got this concept from.
Piracy DOES fund terrorism
Piracy does fund terrorism. That much is true. But it’s not P2P piracy funding anything.
The piracy funding terrorism is the large scale duplication of CD’s, DVD’s and software in other countries that is then sold at MUCH lower prices than legitimate copies.
RIAA and the MPAA are barking up the wrong tree, telling half truths to get their agenda pushed through. No one is making money from P2P. Except the RIAA’s lawyers and sell-out congressmen.
Re: Piracy DOES fund terrorism
that might be a small profit for them but they get most of their money from outside funding (whoever needs a new favor) & opiates but mostly opiates.
Re: Piracy DOES fund terrorism
Exactly, which is why if we cared AT ALL, we’d push harder for P2P freedom and completely undercut terrorist profit margins with free product.
Re: Piracy DOES fund terrorism
Care to back that up?
Response to editoral
I can understand the intolerance some may have for being in question. I am sure the Taliban must agree, as well. If Americans were to just let things be, and not questions so much, then the “terrorist” would soon be able to stop all the “infidels”, and satanic music. Then, I am confident some people would be much happier.
here's the question
Why does anyone care? it’s Guns’n’Roses, who were past their prime in the early 90s. And for that matter, it’s not really guns’n’roses, it’s Axel Rose with a bunch of other dudes since the original band have either retired or are doing something else. It’s not hard to see how this got leaked, Axel’s only been working on this new album for about 10 years.
Re: here's the question
It’s been fourteen years of silence. It’s been fourteen years of pain.
Why is it "either or"?
Why does it always have to be one or the other? Rape and murder are important priorities for my local police department, but they still manage to cover robberies and assaults, handle DUIs, and give out parking and speeding tickets.
Amd since the FBI has 28,576 employees, two guys asking questions doesn’t seem to an overly egregious misuse of manpower.
Re: Why is it "either or"?
Why does it always have to be one or the other?
It’s about priorities. There is a limited budget to go after crime. Do you really believe that there aren’t better things that could be done here?
Re: Re: Why is it "either or"?
To follow Mr. Long’s example, are you suggesting then that his local police department should not enforce speeding and parking violations, DUIs, assaults, etc. and instead spend 100% of their resources on murders and rapes until all those are solved/prosecuted, and only then go after the “lesser” crimes? If I were a betting man, I’d wager you’d see a rash of unarmed burglaries, since they’d never be punished so long as there was one murderer left to catch.
If you want to argue that this offense is not breaking a law, or that it’s not within the FBI’s jurisdiction, that’s one thing. But saying it shouldn’t be prosecuted because there are “bigger fish to fry” is a pretty shallow and stupid argument.
Go out and speed through a school zone at 60mph, if you’re capable of doing so safely and under complete control of your vehicle — arguably, a “victimless crime”. Then, when a cop pulls you over for speeding, try telling him that he shouldn’t give you a ticket, because he should be out catching murderers or rapists instead. Tell him that would be a better use of his time. Let us know how that works out for you.
Re: Re: Re: Why is it "either or"?
seems like someone needs to learn what the term “exaggerated humor” means.
lets say this then. As taxpayer I’m sure Mike and many, many others would like to see the FBI pursuing something more beneficial to society than tracking down a lone person who leaked a copy of a G-n-R album which as both you and i know will be all over the net the second its released.
Re: Re: Why is it "either or"?
Of course there are priorities. That’s why the other 28,574 employees were doing something else…
It's a travesty really...
It’s almost like we’re living in a Chinese Democracy.
Re: It's a travesty really...
touche’
Re: Re: It's a travesty really...
Coward, I don’t think you’re using touché correctly. Touché is used when you have made a point and then DS78 makes a counter-point. You have not actually made a point yet.
Re: It's a travesty really...
Good One!! That’s what is funny this album has been leaked about 5 different times now, that I know of. Why don’t they just do the same thing they always did, say its not the real album. Go back and change a few things!!
Friendly advice: When your in the nursing home or retiring, dont tell anyone of your epic adventures. Or how the next generations are supposed to pay for your $10 trillion debt you amassed and expect your grandchildren to pay, cause your social security checks will be one of the first things to go.
the FBI
Well Mike… no, the FBI doesn’t have “better” things to do… it’s the FBI’s job. (?…) They have OTHER things to do as WELL… (that are ALSO their job)… but this is what they do for a living.
Re: the FBI
Well Mike… no, the FBI doesn’t have “better” things to do… it’s the FBI’s job. (?…) They have OTHER things to do as WELL… (that are ALSO their job)… but this is what they do for a living.
But there are limited resources, and there are priorities.
Promote those agents
Good! Anything that helps keep Axl’s heinous “music” away from the public is fine with me.
“Looks like we’re gonna need more FBI guys.”
Lobbyists
I guess they need to raise some money to catch the terrorists, or secure our borders. What better way than to be at the beckon call for the copyright mafia? They really ought to investigate RIAA and MPAA and their financial flows.
another napster?
Why don’t we just call Metallica and ask them for some advise on how to fuck with their loyal listeners. If I want to buy a pirated copy of something, i’m going to do it. If i want to buy it to support the filthy rich artists because i think they deserve it, i will. fucken feds
Re: another napster?
The “fucken feds” of the world are almost always the one who have no real understanding of anything beyond their personal domain and interests … all the while, enjoying the security and benefits provided by the “fucken feds.”
fucken hypocrites …
I bought this album for $5 on may 31st from some dude at a concert. This guy wasn’t the first to leak it.
attorney general singular
“various attorneys general”? There’s only one attorney general with authority over the FBI: Michael B. Mukasey.
Re: attorney general singular
“various attorneys general”? There’s only one attorney general with authority over the FBI: Michael B. Mukasey.
Both Mukasey and Gonzales had said similar things. That’s why I used the plural.
What's the issue here?
The FBI is going after a person because the FBI felt that person broke a law? I’m no FBI agent, but that makes sense to me.
Of course they don’t have anything better to do… there are no terrorists other than the ones running this country, and they can’t go after them. And besides, this guy was unlikely to shoot at them….he’s a safe target.
Never cease to be amazed, that's why we have so many laws on the books
Foolish people say foolish things, but that’s not what makes people foolish, repeating foolish things with out verification of the facts is what makes people foolish.
Chinese Democracy
This album has actually been floating around the internet for several years. There has long been a joke about the album Chinese Democracy coming out around when China actually becomes a democracy. There’s 2 versions of this bootleg also, the first of which has the excellent guitarist Buckethead on it. The more recent one is basically a complete remake of the album. I doubt the blogger in question had any kind of inside connection with Guns N Roses, just do a simple search on Pirate Bay for Chinese Democracy and there’s plenty of people to get it from. I’m really not sure why this guy is being singled out, maybe just to be an example. Also, and rather ironically, the former Guns N Roses member Duff McKagen has released his current band’s newest album as a free download on the internet, which you can get here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=99640
Thin Monoply does not equal a true monoply
Yes, indeed. Back in the days before there was a real understanding of the unintended and harmful consequences of monopolies.
REALLY……Mike….do you believe that they didn’t understand “True Monopolies” and their effects?
But, if you take a picture of the goat, you are awarded a monopoly on that picture. You are awarded a monopoly on that poem.
Are you the real Mike Masnik? Mike I can’t quite decide if you fail to understand “Copyright Law”, or you’re intentionally misleading the foolish. IDEAS don’t beget copyright nor patent protection, anyone is free to build upon the idea.
The most “Public Benefit” comes from the most works AVAILABLE, that doesn’t mean the most unfettered rights to copy. Intellectual advance is propelled by standing on the works that came before, to see farther, not a regurgitation of the same works. Abridgments of those existing works that are used in accordance, as learning/enjoyment tools are what round out that bargain. The failure to make secure the right will in fact lead to less productions, as creators will not continue to produce, nor make available what is produced.
This in my mind would then lead to a situation where creations are a production of large well capitalized corporations. This results in fewer rights holders, aggregating more properties. Where competition and price slide to antitrust issues.
Let me tell you I spent two years in a very intense photography program, where we were each given the same art directive, and compelled to shoot the same subject, based on the same approximate angle, camera lenses, and lighting plan, every day of the week due on the same day the following week. Then each student was required to mount on museum board their assignment, and put it on the critique-board, where upon each image was then critiqued by every student and the professor.
Now we each had to set the shot from scratch, not just walk up and load the 4X5 with a piece of film. The outcome….out of 30 images…. I never once saw the same image…they were all, the same subject…but each photographer added to the assignment his interpolation of the art directive. We all made distinct choices, in the exact angle of the camera and the various angles of the lighting sets, within the approximate angles that were assigned. As well as color and composition choices with in the set of the subject, and any elements that were added in as supporting cast. Now we each had to then process and print our film in the school dark rooms, where we again made additional choices as to the push/pull, temp-controls that change the density and contrast of the base film, as well as make the final print, using controls that we use under the enlarger….burning & dodging, contrast controls, masking, and paper choices.
Guess what, each photographer earned his copyright, and I would bet that in a court each photographer would only get the “Thin Monopoly” as intended under the copyright law, if one tried to claim infringement by the other
Re: Thin Monoply does not equal a true monoply
After reading and reflecting on the story at digital native. I wonder is it morals that are changing or is that society is changing so fast, that we can’t instill in those coming up those values that help people to make decisions based on fairness?
What is fairness now and how will it change in the future? Do we accept it as the new moral code? How will it translate to the many additional laws of society that we all depend on?
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/digitalnatives/2008/06/20/digital-natives-by-a-digital-native-from-germany/
To speak more generally (and not simply about German youth), teenagers at large don’t have an understanding of copyright and ownership of digital goods. They want to share, want to mix, and want to edit. They can’t understand why it is not okay to go to Wikipedia, print a page, and use it for a speech. Anyway, that’s how they still do it. Most of their created presentations are totally or partly rip-offs and plagiarism. But teachers – especially the older ones – simply fail to discover them, and so it’s not punished, and there are no consequences for the students. Although they know it’s illegal, they do it, just because they can and because they know nothing else. Besides the school-related illegal sharing, there are of course downloading and sharing of songs, movies and other stuff. I don’t know whether that is because students do not have the needed money for buying every interesting movie or just because those things are too expensive.
Re: Re: Thin Monoply does not equal a true monoply
After reading and reflecting on the story at digital native. I wonder is it morals that are changing or is that society is changing so fast, that we can’t instill in those coming up those values that help people to make decisions based on fairness?
Huh? What do morals or fairness have to do with it, when those who embrace it make both themselves and the consumers of their content better off?
If everyone is better off, then morals don’t even come into play.
To speak more generally (and not simply about German youth), teenagers at large don’t have an understanding of copyright and ownership of digital goods.
Don’t be insulting. Have you talked to kids these days? Many of them very much understand it. They just don’t think it makes any sense.
They want to share, want to mix, and want to edit.
Yes. What’s wrong with that? That’s a good thing. They want to collaborate, create and communicate. We should encourage that.
They can’t understand why it is not okay to go to Wikipedia, print a page, and use it for a speech.
Why is that not okay?
Although they know it’s illegal, they do it, just because they can and because they know nothing else.
No. It’s not that they “know nothing else.” It’s that they recognize that if they can build on the works of others, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that.
Society was developed on priciple of those that came before
Yet more to ponder…it seems Mike is upfront on what the trend is. But I question what the effects on society are and really will be?
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article4144585.ece
The average digital music player carries 1,770 songs, meaning that 48 per cent of the collection is copied illegally. The proportion of illegally downloaded tracks rises to 61 per cent among 14 to 17-year-olds. In addition, 14 per cent of CDs (one in seven) in a young person’s collection are copied.
Re: Society was developed on priciple of those that came before
Yet more music is created, purchased, shared, concerts attended, live concerts (e.g. bar bands) performed, etc… than ever before. So what exactly do those statistics you quote prove?
I’ll leave aside questions as to the accuracy of those statistics, the foundation of them, etc…
hahhahaha
It just dawned on me….the kids rule the roost….not because it’s right…but because the parents don’t have the time to give their children.
It all just became clear when you read the comments at the link below.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article4144585.ece
Re: hahhahaha
Lloyd, you have made some sweeping comments about society and large groups of individuals without providing much proof.
In my experience, talking directly to teenagers, they “get” technology WAY BETTER than us older folks. Yes, I can out code them, build more technically correct websites, run a better/cleaner/safer desktop…but when it comes to application of the technological tools (twitter, facebook, IM, SMS, P2P, Second Life, yada-yada-yada), they are much better networked and make big leaps between the social and informational uses of these technologies.
Please don’t take one article on one website and the comments of that one article by one very statistically biased audience as “proof” of your biases.
Re: Re: hahhahaha
Lloyd, you have made some sweeping comments about society and large groups of individuals without providing much proof.
mobi….go read http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080625/0111221510#c465
Then re-read my post here http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080625/0111221510#c649 and then follow and read the link in that post.
You will quickly see the error of your way, and after Mike does the same, he to shall.
Now if you really desire to understand my position read here , all of it http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/gender-and-copyright.html
In all I try not to Cheerlead my position on any…I just ponder questions, that go a little deeper
I think it’s downright comical that Axl can keep a lid on the whole project for a decade and the minute it’s out of his sight, it’s on the internet. The Industry say the the fans are the problem!