seems he admitted to it, two times, in writing.. signed !!

you can read the official court documents here also:

http://www.piracyisacrim...-guns-n-roses-leak.html

This terrible album is readily available in 50 different files on the Torrents and Usenet.

Of course I downloaded it anyways.

I bet UMG leaked them in the first place just to pull this type of crap. It's a great new business model isn't it?

what i wanna know is if he got any letters telling him to remove them, and ignored them, and then the FBI came, cause at least a DMCA letter tells you stop or get in trouble.

Whats funny is, Who the heck would care enough to download this? Axl's brings new meaning to the term, Jump the Shark.

People who realize it isn't worth any $$ but want to laugh at how bad it is, just my guess.
Or err that would be my only reason :)

What i find really amazing is, how Axl is still alive.

Yup, we now have a handful of terms to describe the phenomenon, depending on where it happens:

TV: "Jump the shark"
Movie: "Nuke the fridge"
Music: "Release a Chinese Democracy"
Politics: "Pick a Sarah Palin"

Wow so you can be arrested now for copyright infringment. I guess the RIAA must enjoy having their own paid police force.

SSSSH! Hush up or they might hear you.

But I do want to know - how the heck do these songs get leaked in the first place? Shouldn't they be arresting Axl Rose if he got drunk one night and wanted to impress a chick so he could score and he played a few tracks for her and she recorded it via her cellphone?

It's always the horndogs - you gotta arrest the horndogs. Don't blame this dude for Axl being a horndog.

Holy crud man!

It looks like if you do ANYTHING wrong, they can find out about it and put the smack down on ya.

Since NBC is a free over-the-air network, I thought it was ok to download an episode of Law and Order that I had missed, but I got a Comcast DMCA notice for it. I was like - HUH? It's free TV.

I just ended up spending $49 on another VCR and it does nothing but record NBC shows.

Kinda freaks me out.

I wonder if they are documenting what songs I listen to on LAST FM or what shows I watch on HULU?

Remember when you would get all stoned in high school and you'd be all paranoid about everything? Maybe being paranoid isn't such a bad thing after all...

Who told you I was paranoid???

Of course they watch on Hulu, that's the whole point.

I would like to know if Comcast is helping Hulu to connect the dots on who you are and what is your demographic. That would be scary.

Let me start by saying that NO ONE should be arrested here in this case. After all these years, it is obvious that the recording industry and the artists still don't get it.

Instead of arresting people they should be thanking theme for getting their music out to the masses like they did, as soon as possible. All that does is build up more hype and excitement for the rest of the music that will be coming out.

Also, when is the recording industry finally going to learn: the music they produce should be given away freely on the internet (as lower quality, highly compressed MP3's - yes, I am saying we should bring back the ORIGINAL LimeWire, Napster, BearShare and Gnutella apps - exactly as they were originally released BEFORE the DRM stupidity). The free, global distribution of that much lower quality music then serves as the perfect hype generator to promote the sale of other products like much higher quality original CD's, SACD's, DVD's etc.

Much the same way that the printer industry practically gives away printers at low prices knowing they will make their revenue on the consumables (ink, photo paper, etc) the recording industry should be encouraging the free internet based distribution of lower quality, highly compressed MP3's as a way of generating awareness of, and excitement for, the material they produce, all around the world.

One thing the recording industry still doesn't get is that nothing makes you want to go out and buy a high quality, PERFECT studio quality recording of a song like hearing a low quality, compressed MP3 version of it and falling in love with it. Conversely, not ever having heard a song at all guarantees that you will never have a reason to buy the CD, the SACD or the DVD.

After all these years now, why is this STILL such a difficult concept for the RIAA, the record companies and artists to actually grasp?

Simple answer: fear and greed.

Time to FINALLY WAKE UP and snap out of it guys. This is really getting old at this point.

Its apparent that YOU still don't get it.

Regardless of what you think, you have no say in how the owner of the material decides to distribute it.

If you don't like that, tough. Don't buy it.
That is as far as your and others rights to tne material extend.

I would say that you are the one who doesn't get it. He has no say according to the law. The law is only part of the equation. People downloading music, legally or not, is part of the real world, not a court of law. The music owners can be in the right, but that fact doesn't help them sell albums. Regardless of the law, whether it is considered fair or not, they still have to sell albums to customers, and there will always be competition. Music piracy could be considered part of that competition, and they're rightfully afraid of it because it takes away their power to manipulate the market as they have in the past.

One thing the recording industry still doesn't get is that nothing makes you want to go out and buy a high quality, PERFECT studio quality recording of a song like hearing a low quality, compressed MP3 version of it and falling in love with it

But there is a problem. They need to produce music we love for us to buy it. That happened, let me see... 10 years ago the last time. :P

Sorry bozo. How the owner wants to manage their property is their business, and whether they are effective in selling or not selling their material is superfluous.

Jerks who feel they are entitled (YOUR wacko reality) to someone else's property in violation of the owners EULA remains illegal, and fools like you can whine all you like as you get hauled into court.

But I am sure they appreciate you worrying about their welfare SOOOOO much! LOL!

Its THEIR material. They are entitled to 'manipulate' it however they freaking choose as long as its legal! If you don't like the price. TOUGH! If you don't like the material, TOUGH! You have no inherent right to it! Are we going too fast you, you self-entitled dimwit? Your only right is that you don't have to buy it. And if you do, you do so in accordance to their useage license.

He is not talking about copyright not being right or challenging the ownership rights but about the way music is promoted and distributed nowadays. A shame you can't differentiate both comments. -_-;

Doesn't matter at all!

The owner of the material has the right to do it effectively or ineffectively. Its their choice.

And regardless of how it is done, it makes no difference, and certainly serves as NO justification for others misusing said property - which IS the subject of the thread.

Oh...

Is it their right to exercise complete and utter control over every aspect of their work? Sure. Is it their right to totally mismanage themselves, their careers, their materials and commit commercial suicide? Sure. Most here aren't arguing that point.

The comments about "what they don't get" refer to the fact that they all are stuck in a dying business model and for the most part have failed to take advantage of the opportunities available in this 'digital age.' The tighter they squeeze the more slips from their grasp.

LOL!

Yup. Most in this thread and in all of the other RIAA related posts are simply critiquing the implications of both evolutionary and disruptive technologies on business models.

That is, when they are not whining that others who have taken it upon themselves, like some idiot in this case, to entitle themselves to others material - albeit only in the name of altruistically wanting to help. My @ss.

They want to help, then enter in to a discussion in a forum where artists congregate. Talk to them. Work on an executive MBA and discuss it there. I don't care.

The fact is, the use of such a lame excuse to justify the misappropriation of material after the fact does not qualify!

Are business models changing? Sure. Has one emerged that is dominant? NO!

But the one that fails on all counts is someone other than the owner entitling themselves to the material and disseminating it via P2P without compensation and/or buy-in and agreement of the material's owner.

But not to worry. I think you are obtaining the maximum use of your car, so I am sure you won't mind if I and a few of my friends borrow it when we want and use it to do whatever we want without first consulting you - and even if we do, still persisting in violating your wishes.

But not to worry, it doesn't really matter what you think anyway, as we are just maximizing its utility and exploring new paradigms in material management.

Whomever committed the act mentioned in the thread deserves to be taken down...regardless of what you think of business models.

And how things should be on the planet Uranus are rendered moot and relegated to a discussion over a beer.

They Ought to promote their albums just like Tech N9ne/Strange Music(His record label) they put out a sampler of all the music they were gonna put out this year. Most of the songs were only about 30-50 seconds but there was at least FULL song from each album. Now just hearing the sample made me like alot of the songs so now I have all the cds they have put out this year so far.

@ foxfyre...

Your view on the simularity between someone borrowing your car vs. someone distributing a music file on the net is flawed. You would need to adjust your little senario to make it work. First, the car would not be "borrowed". It would be "copied" (or replicated). Second, going with your logic here, I can NOT own the rights to the car in the first place! I only agreed to the EUIA (whatever that would mean with a car) when I dropped my kids college tution down to pay for it. Third, if someone were to "copy" my car and subsequently "do whatever they wanted" with it - fine. There is no real loss to me. (You need a better example of demonstrating "Loss"). As well, using your example further, if the dealership decided that they didn't want me driving my car anymore, they can dictate such and I would be forced to comply (despite paying for the car). I would have absolutely no say in the actual USE of the car. If I did, I would be "breaking the law" as opposed to being "liebel" (read: sued).
Distributing music files via the internet is not an 'actual exchange'. There is no transference of a file, but rather a perfect copy made. It's not like drug dealing. It's not like shoplifting. It is not "theft", by definition. No one is 'taking' anything from another. It is duplication. The same as you do at work with the photocopy machine and all those newspaper cartoons that you post in the coffee room. The same as you do when you download that receipe from [enter search site name here] and then bake a cake. The same as when you sit down to watch all those TV shows you recorded (without expressed written permission, I might add, from the the networks). It may be a violation of the terms of use, but it is NOT stealing. The RIAA has done a very good job convincing you (and the US government) otherwise. (When was the last time you read about someone getting arrested by the FBI for recording TV shows for a neighbor while they were on vacation? Or the FBI used to arrest shoplifters?)

This guy, as was stated previously, had obtained the tracks from (most likely) an insider/well-connected individual(s). The REAL thief is the "insiders who work for the RIAA" that leak this material on-going (and it has been well documented that the source is usually an employee of the MPAA/RIAA). To date, there has been almost zero action from either the RIAA or the MPAA to police their own "control" over their product.
His stupidy not-with-standing, the actions he did certainly does not justify incarceration. A fine would be sufficient punishment, at maximum. A criminal record, that will follow him the rest of his life, is over-kill.

My 2 cents.
Peace

You overvalue your supposed insight at 2 cents.

Then think counterfeiting, you fool.

Your rationalization is simply dependent upon your distinction between real and virtual and utterly fails to recognize the rights of ownership of intellectual and virtual sources.

But someone as limited as yourself obviously feels it is no imposition if say, someone taped a performance of Beethoven's 5th and then re-distributed the same under their own name. After all, they are not actually stealing the performance.

You haven't a clue where he got the files. So your speculation is moot at best, and superfluous at worst. He is a party to the crime. He knew that they were 'stolen'.

Where did you learn about the law? Your comic book attempt at rationalization is pathetic.

And it is the jurisdiction of the FBI for interstate infractions - JUST AS THE PRINTED WARNINGS ON RECORDED MEDIA STATES. DUH! And the difference in your asinine analogy is that it is not the FBI's jurisdiction simply for local shoplifting. Get a clue.

"Distributing music files via the internet is not an 'actual exchange'." LOL!!!! Gee, I guess if they transfer fund electrically, they are not actually paying for the material either! Ever considered becoming a mob lawyer? ROFLMAO!

Oh, so you might want to stick to counterfeiting. Then all can they can get you for is littering by your irrationalisation! HAHA! Boy, will you surprise the Secret Service with your oh so swooft legal insight(sic)!

You are so incredibly ignorant of so much that you assume you understand to make your post a valiant effort to rationalize your own ignorance. And unfortunately for you, that doesn't make others stupid.

And a fine without a criminal record? What orifice do you have your head in? They cannot fine you unless there is a finding of guilt. And a finding of guilt constitutes a criminal record. Oh, but I forget - according to you since recorded material is virtual, he really didn't do anything. LOL! Sorta like asserting that you actually think - and as thoughts are virtual, there is obviously no evidence of your having done much of anything before posting that crap.

My suggestion, don't go into law or law enforcement.

What is truly amazing here, and sad, is that more than ten years now since all this foolishness with the RIAA, the record companies and the artists began, they still continue to bite the hand that feeds them by persuing this type of legal action. They STILL can't see the forest for the trees.

They have collectively ruined any level or credibility or respect that they ever had with their customers...for an entire generation! The perception of the RIAA in the minds of the consuming public is now roughly on par with that of the Nazi SS and the Gestapo: utter disgust and complete contempt. Is that what they call a business success story? Is that the victory they are celbrating each time they crush a soccer mom in court for downloading an MP3 file? I guess one step forward and one hundred million steps back is a model that works for them. They might want to go back and crack open their first year psychology text books again and look up a term called the signaling effect. That might make an interesting read for them.

Never in the annals of American business history has an organization worked so hard and spent so much, to do such damage to their cause in the minds of the consuming public (aka their CUSTOMERS!!!).

I can just see the case studies now that will be written about the RIAA at Harvard and Wharton in the years to come. The term "cutting off your nose dispite your face" has been taken to entirely new levels here I think by these oblivious RIAA fools. They have literally re-defined the term self-destructive behavior.

I just have to wonder...how can so many so called smart and educated people get it so wrong for so long?

Whew!!! I'm glad they finally found Skwerl! Anyone who exposes the public to Axl's 10 year in the making disasterpiece should be punished! Did they have to send F.B.I. ? They could of sent Barney Fife and saved a taxpayer buck or two. Slash must be laughing his a** off behind that poodle hair!

With the evil Skwerl out of the way maybe NOW they can concentrate on finding Bin-Laden?

Skwerl shouldn't have been arrested, he should be commended for releasing the album...because Axl sure as hell can't do it! Universal is probably afraid the couple of hundred people that were going to buy the album may just download it instead. Or they may try to recoup their losses from the album's production by suing people, which the record companies seem to be better at than adapting their marketing these days. Do people still care about this album being released? It's Guns N' Roses in name only. There couldn't be a true Guns N' Roses without Axl, but there also shouldn't be a Guns N' Roses with Axl as the only original member.

Who are these Guns N' Roses and that Axl? :P
In any case I disagree, he should be punished for helping them distribute that horrible music (if it can be called music at all).