Report: Man who shared 'Chinese Democracy' to plead guilty

The man accused of copyright violations after posting tracks from Guns N' Roses upcoming album--Chinese Democracy--has agreed to plead guilty, according to a published report.

Dave Kravets over at Wired.com reports that Kevin Cogill, 27, confessed to uploading nine songs last summer to his site, Antiquiet and now faces a misdemeanor charge of copyright infringement.

Los Angeles federal prosecutor Craig Missakian told Kravets that Cogill's guilty plea was part of a plea deal that will be entered on December. 8. Last August, Cogill became the first Californian charged under a 3-year-old federal antipiracy law that makes it a felony to distribute unreleased copyright works online.

As part of the deal, Cogill will only face up to one year in prison instead of the five years that a felony conviction could have brought.

[farker1]

i really fail to see how spending any time in prison is just for "stealing" imaginary property.

[fredtheviking]

Imaginary property? The problem is that music has become so easy to obtain through the internet that music itself has become devalued. This is due to a rampant disregard for music copyright and people just put the music out, even though they have no right to do so. Of tens if not hundreds thousand of people doing thing, one has been caught and punished So, I can see how someone might think it is crazy to throw that person in prison for 1 year for uploading 9 songs to a public website. But as far as I am concern he was let off too easy.

Basically, imagine someone stealing a 100,000 dollars and then just started handing out the money to the general public. This person might be admired and perhaps even tales might be written about such a person. But at the end day, he is a thief, but not only that he has committed grand theft, which is a felony. You get hard time for that. That is essential what Dave Kravets has done and has to serve only one year. Granted there is no way to know how much damage Mr. Kravets did.

Having said that, there are people who got those songs for free from Mr. Kravets who might have otherwise brought them if they could not have so easy be stolen. So, you might say he opened some of the many doors avialiable for stealing music.

[Football-Maniac]

"Basically, imagine someone stealing a 100,000 dollars and then just started handing out the money to the general public."

We elect people to do that everyday.

"This person might be admired and perhaps even tales might be written about such a person. But at the end day, he is a thief, but not only that he has committed grand theft, which is a felony."

Can we prosecute the people we elected?

"You get hard time for that. That is essential what Dave Kravets has done and has to serve only one year. Granted there is no way to know how much damage Mr. Kravets did."

I think Chinese Democracy is doomed regardless of leaks. You can't polish a terd.

[Alpha___13]

Don't poo-poo his comment Football-Maniac. His argument is one of the few valid ones in a sea of "well they shouldn't have kept it in for so long" and "don't they have enough money" arguments.

He stole it. Period. And he distributed it when he obviously had no right to. Music isn't "imaginary" property. They probably spent a lot time, effort, and money writing and recording the album just to have a leaked and distributed by someone who thought they were taking too long.

[rdnetto]

I agree that what he did was crime (regardless of morality), but does the punishment fit the crime? He put 9 songs on a website at no gain to himself, and he receives a punishment comparable to that for manslaughter. Does the law now give the same regard to copyright as they do human lives? Surely he should have received a fine of some kind instead of a prison sentence.

[anthm76]

Even with the reduced sentence, he still paid quite a price for making those songs available online. The LEAST we can do is go and download them!

[karpenterskids]

Yikes...are all offenders of copyright infringement for unreleased property treated this harshly?

If so, can anyone post links on here to other cases? Thanks.

[Riquez-001]

I think a prison sentence for one guy uploading 9 songs is not a balanced decision.
He did not mug anyone, or break in anywhere to steal - he clicked a few buttons & dragged some files from the left to the right. No money was actually stolen.
Of course what he did was illegal, but I think a fine or community service is more appropriate - in this case.

Now, if he were uploading 100's of songs, selling them, running a whole black market - a prison sentence might be more appropriate.

Its interesting to note, that by him leaving the music in the open & other people taking it - he is punished & not those who actually took the music.

[helroth]

People get much lighter sentences for stealing cars, TVs, etc. First time offenders usually get probation, and even repeat offenders get less than a year in jail. This is totally out of balance. The possible sentence without the plea bargain is five years - people get less than that for involuntary manslaughter!

[lorcro2000]

Now, considering the utter trash that is that album, he does perhaps deserve jailtime for unleashing nine songs off it onto an unsuspecting world, but it's a continuing outrage and disgrace that US copyright law have mutated into this ugly cancer on society it has recently become.

I don't think any private citizen would assign a higher need to punish copyright violators than violent criminals, muggers, rapists and the like but the fact of the matter is these days, economic crimes get punished on a far harsher scale than crime the common man actually cares about.

The problem is the public isn't the parties determining crime and punishment, it is the large commercial interests who routinely all but purchase politians and lawmakers who push for these crazy levels of punisment for these crimes. It's definitely unfair, it's not right and worst of all, no matter how many examples they make out of people who a majority of the population feel haven't even committed a crime it will have little to no impact on the core issue.

Destroying even one life to protect the inflated profits of the media conglomerates is simply unacceptable, and that is what happens every day with RIAA and MPAA lawsuits and other similar abuses of the legal justice system.

[Allana_philips]

I am not completely agreed or satisfied with the conversation going on by virtue of changing the topic and also putting their own interesting news are ideas on the wrong way, so i don't want to say any thing...

[Lemon5]

Sigh, really. He stole something, but now he has to go to jail for a year? I mean this guy didn't even hurt anyone to steal the songs, and he goes to jail for a year? lame. Good to know we think killers are better people than pirates. /sarcasm

[varase]

Has everyone lost the ability to read?

Looks to me like he *can*get* *up*to* a year in the pokey.

Not has gotten. Not will get.

You mention penalties for violent crimes, but I'm sure the figures you're quoting are what actually happened in some less onerous circumstance, not the strictest penalty that *could* be imposed should the offender demonstrate a heinous disregard for human life.

[Thirteenburn]

What about the people who "steal" the music for personal purposes and who don't put it up for others to take? What about that?

This issue is too convoluted to come to any one, simple answer. My own personal view, one that is shared by many, is that the music industry brought this upon themselves. Even the very people that are supposed to be hurt by this the most - musicians themselves - have come out and said they don't have a problem with it and have even downloaded music themselves without paying for it. OK, so now what?

As long as the industry keeps spewing forth complete crap to the masses, they will continue their downward spiral into the toilet and have no one to blame but themselves. But since they won't blame themselves, they in turn blame the fans. Look how well that worked out for Lars Ulrich? Now Metallica are "embrassing" the technology along with such bands as Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, etc., and are taking the distribution of their music out of the hands of those who exploit said music for personal wealth and the musicians are finally getting sick of it enough to do something about it.

Should this fellow be thrown in jail for what he did? No. What he did was wrong, no doubt about it, but what he did that was wrong was to distribute the music, not the act of getting it from where ever it came from. And this is a point that is being missed as well. Where did he get the songs from? He didn't work in the studio, nor does he have any ties to the band in any way, shape or form, but yet he got ahold of their music. Again, that is the question that needs to be answered and legal steps followed up to that end and not the fan himself.

Just my opinion.

[karpenterskids]

I couldn't agree more. :)