Two Ryan Adams fans in the States have been charged with violating copyright laws after they made songs from the singer's Jacksonville City Nights available online.
Robert Thomas and Jared Bowser face up to eleven years in the slammer - getting slammed, since they're probably pretty indie boys - if found guilty on all counts. They made a selection of songs from Adams' second album of 2005 available for downloading back in August. The album didn't come out officially until September.
Although their actions were almost certainly innocent at heart, US attorney Jim Vines has little sympathy:
"Any perception that copyright violations are victimless crimes is just plain wrong.
"Theft of music, trade secrets and other intellectual property victimizes the creators of such works, who have a legal right to determine how their work is distributed."
DiScuss: Does this put the willies up anyone? Is it possible to crack down on all illegal filesharers, or are the powers that be fighting a losing battle?
Umm
It's nigh on impossible to monitor every single downloader (I suspect). And even if they can who is going to police the police? Huh?
Is that picture Ryan Adams or the guy from Green Day?
they are gonna have
to build some god dam big prisons. half the population will be in them.
they should have filesharer prisons
it would be fun
Its
funny you should mention that.
When I was younger, I saw a picture of Craig Nicholls, and the caption had something about Ryan Adams in. Up until this year, I thought they looked very alike, until I saw a photo like that.
He looks like a Sk8R who's aged about 15 years.
i think the point here
is that the guys put the songs online a month before the album came out. And that isn't really on. It isn't for anyone else to decide when an album is released other than the artist - for obvious reasons. 11 years seems a bit fucking harsh though.
To put tracks from an album released on one of the big labels and watched by RIAA up on the internet - was it a blog? - before it's release date is just asking for trouble.
They'll never be given 11 years. There was a story I read where someone had $50 million worth of illegal music and videos and only got a $4,500 fine and community service.
why?
can't they just put Ryan Adams in jail instead?
IT IS NOT THEFT!
Theft is when you deprive the owner of the said item so they can no longer have access to it.
Making a copy is something else ENTIRELY
11 years - ridiculous
The picture of Ryan is about 4 years old.
It's not him behind this. It's his ever so slightky wankerish record company Lost Highway.
No Doubt true
this might be worth reading on the issue - it's interesting anyway
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2791&date=20060103
and I quote
"Anyone who grew up in the 70s or later is used to living on the Net ... Technology has completely undermined the need for a whole class of businesses that previously distributed information, since people can suddenly get hold of the information themselves," he said.
The businesses, with political support, "are trying to make all the behaviour that is threatening their continued existence illegal,"
*yawn*
no it isn't. Making a copy is exactly the same crime as stealing. The only difference is that this is easier than going into a shop to steal it. If you hacked into the iTunes store and picked out songs without paying for them (leaving the file there for others but making a duplicate) that would clearly be theft and there's no difference between that and copying a promo and putting it all over the web.
The "everyone does it" or "records are too expensive and major record label people are all idiots" arguments I understand, but as soon as people start trying to think it's not a crime or should be legal I just don't get it.
I didn't say it's not a crime or illegal
but it is NOT theft
it is theft
still doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong.
but by allowing people to download the music before it is released deprives the artist of potential sales
Theft in English law
Theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"...the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
laws like that aren't set
intellectual property is dealt with in a more abstract way
NO NO NO NO NO
the very definition of the word theft in english law is the one above
thus, the ONLY way in which you can commit theft of intellectual property is by 'passing off' someone else's work as your own.
The use of the word theft in relation to downloading is entirely rhetoric by the labels and RIAA etc. to demonise the filesharer - no one is being prosecuted for theft - they are being prosecuted for copyright infringement and related laws
yes?
are you not "permanently depriving" ryan adams of the money you would otherwise have paid him?
no?
i'm no expert but i (would hypothetically of course) always feel guilty when i've downloaded music
hmm
No
or at least maybe - in the same way that his PR department, distributors, labels etc are doing by sending out promos to DJs or reveiwers who might otherwise have bought them
11 years in prison for 4 songs!!!
The guy probably went out and bought the album the day that it came out anyway!
This is a joke!
I totally agree with what baseballfan just said - when i download myself, i go and get the CD, Vinyl or whatever else is going! Unbelievable. Wonder what Mr Adams thinks of it all
mm
all this downloading of tracks is like listening to the radio.we all used to record our favourite song from the radio.was that theft?no!real fans would download a album and treat it like a preview and if you like the album you would go and buy it.makes sense!i dont want no shitty download album i want the real thing in a package lyrics and photos.so its not theft its like a radio that doesnt play just the singles but the whole album!a advert maybe?well thats what i think!
In fairness...
This is different to file-sharing. I mean there's a clear difference between illegally downloading a song that's available and putting the songs up for download in the first place so most illegal downloaders don't need to be worried as they've not done the same thing.
I personally believe that downloading is a good thing and ultimately helps rather than hinders artist's sales but I also do think it should be the artist's decision as tow when songs should be available.
11 years is obviously ridiculously harsh but I'm a bit confused as to how anyone thought sticking up songs from a major label artist a month before release wouldn't have repurcussions.
or
if you look at it another way
it's promotion
what i don't get
is why people STILL don't see the music industry (particularly the riaa) as the fucking evil bastard satan-spawn fuck everyone for a profit corporate bastards they are and choose not to patronize such an insidious industry. after the first round of lawsuits (2 years ago i think), people said 'wow, i really shouldn't download music' (which was the scare tactic intent of the riaa) instead of thinking 'HOLY FUCK, THESE FUCKERS ARE SUING THE FUCK OUT OF KIDS FOR DOWNLOADING MUSIC. FUCK THEM. I WILL NEVER GIVE THEM ANOTHER PENNY.'
but then again, americans are jesus freak bush/war supporting cattle fit for the machine.
I wouldn't put it as strongly as that
but aye. I'm personally hoping that all major labels all end up being fucked over by downloading and things.
I hope nobody goes all EFF and Slashdot and say it wasn't illegal becuse of MY RIGHTS OMG I HATE DRM LOLZ or something like that.
Thank goodness I like in lovely Lincolnshire.
phenotypic- you retarded?
It's dumbass liberals like you who give conservatives more fodder to exploit all of you music-buying younguns. Dipshit.
That is
very scary news indeed.
I don't think
you should make it available sooner rather than letting people buy the CD, but if it's sending a friend a song or making a mix cd, that's fine. And 11 years is fucking crazy, I've heard of supposed child molesters that got less than that.
Erm
This might not be true, but I'm sure someone once said downloading is legal, uploading is illegal?
nope
both are illegal. they've only been going after uploaders. apparently it's easier to spot uploaders when looking at isp records.
yes, the whole industry is insane with greed. it needs to die. & file sharing is doing it, although slowly. i think it realizes this why it's so desperate to lash out at people.
& i only just learned this, but the music company actually sued radio, back in the 30s or 20s when radio first began playing music. they fucking sue anyone. bastards.
Ludicrous
I wouldn't be surprised to see these loathsome money grabbing music industry types launch another campaign off the back of this. Perhaps 'Download illegally and face up to 11 years of bumrape' would be an effective deterrent. Well done to all involved - you utter fuckwits.
Happy times!
i love how everyone is
ignoring the fact that the article says "UP TO 11 years", ie that is the maximum sentence that can be handed down for the specific crime. They're very, very unlikely indeed to get that.
most likely the 11 years
Is a big threat to get an out-of-court settlement
most of these cases have ended that way
i wish the record companies would stop
shitting their pants about filesharing. it's ridiculous. filesharing is going to kill the music business just like VCRS killed the movie industry. it's just ridiculous.
fair enough, maybe if they took the songs, stuck em on the net and made people pay for them - then it would be more of a serious crime. letting people have them for free is essentially like word of mouth.
maybe ryan should decide
what their sentence is. If he cares. Which he probably doesn't.