Kevin Cogill, the man who pleaded guilty to leaking nine tracks from the then unreleased Guns N' Roses album "Chine se Democracy," was sentenced on Tuesday in Los Angeles to a year's probation and two months of home confinement.
Cogill is lucky not to be headed to jail. Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Missakian recommended to the judge that Cogill spend some time behind bars, but the judge ignored it. "I wanted to send a strong message to people who might consider committing these kinds of crimes in the future," Missakian said.
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. Cogill pleaded guilty to uploading the songs to his personal Web site last August before they went on sale. As part of Cogill's sentence he must make a public service message for the Recording Industry Association of America. A spokesman for the RIAA declined to comment.
The case may not be over. What likely contributed to Cogill's light sentence is that he has told authorities how he came into possession of the songs. Could other arrests be made?
"I can't comment on an ongoing investigation," Missakian said.
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.
The MPAA doesn't want to make it easy for you to copy DVDs; DVD Shrink does.
(Credit: Download.com)If you've been copying DVDs using some made-in-China DVD player, think about taking good care of the device, as you might not be able to buy a replacement.
The Motion Picture Association of America on Friday announced that its member companies have won a breach of contract lawsuit against China-based DVD player manufacturer Gowell Electronics Limited. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a permanent injunction that prohibits the manufacturer from violating any term of the Content Scramble System license agreement.
The lawsuit started in June of 2008 after an MPAA investigation revealed that Gowell was manufacturing and selling DVD players that lacked the appropriate implementation of the CSS license agreement.
CSS technology is a security measure that controls unauthorized access to and copying of copyrighted content on DVDs. The CSS license mandates the content protection that enables film studios to provide consumers with more than 84,000 DVD titles, including 12,000 new titles last year alone.
The motion picture studios are third-party beneficiaries of the CSS license and may enforce it against licensees who fail to comply with its terms.
While this is the ninth such case in which a court has issued a permanent injunction banning future violations of the license, this time the plaintiffs are allowed to review and test any new or re-engineered products that incorporate the CSS technology before going to market.
According to the MPAA, worldwide motion picture industry losses total more than $11 billion annually to hard goods piracy, including bootlegging and illegal copying. MPAA member companies have now won three injunctions against noncompliant DVD player manufacturers and six against companies in the IT area. They intend to continue pursuing other violators vigorously through future litigation.
Personally, I think it's interesting how MPAA counts the money it doesn't make as losses. I am not so sure if the Chinese company would comply 100 percent with the court order, either. And even if it does, I don't know what good that would do to general consumers, like you and me.
- prev
- 1
- next
