Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Is Slash the New Lars Ulrich?
From Rolling Stone's Rock&Roll Daily blog comes word that a judge condemmed Kevin Cogill's arrest as "excessive":
In his hearing this week, a judge questioned the necessity of arresting Guns N’ Roses leaker Kevin Cogill, calling it unnecessary. The man who posted nine songs from the previously unheard sessions for the forever-in-production Chinese Democracy was shown some leniency by the court as the presiding judge felt the proposed $50,000 bail was excessive and noted that a court summons would have been sufficient. Instead, as Cogill’s girlfriend Shana told Rolling Stone, “They put him in handcuffs. They let me get him a shirt, and shoes without any laces before they took him away.” Cogill has a preliminary hearing scheduled for September 17, and if he’s found guilty of violating federal copyright law, he faces up to five years in prison.
It must be difficult for rockstars to act indignant over these kinds of incidents while simultaneously subverting culture—either they suffer some internal angst over blurring the line between suits and rebels, or they're experts at compartmentalizing their artistic credos and business interests. Slash seems to have no such qualms about bitching over leaked tracks, and went so far as to hate on Cogill to the L.A. Times, officially surpassing Lars Ulrich of Metallica for the title of Biggest Copyright Douchebag:
"I hope he rots in jail...It's going to affect the sales of the record, and it's not fair. The Internet is what it is, and you have to deal with it accordingly, but I think if someone goes and steals something, it's theft."
Question for the commenters: We're all gonna want a piece of C.D. when it comes out. Any thoughts on whether or not your average GN'R fan will pay for it?
|9.2.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Heck no. In fact, I'm going to download it illegally as many times as possible, just to really make them lose money.
|9.2.08 @ 2:50PM|#
GnR put out one decent record in Appetite For Destruction. Since then, I wouldn't steal their shit if you paid me.
|9.2.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Heck no. In fact, I'm going to download it illegally as many
times as possible, just to really make them lose money.
I think they're going to lose money without your assistance. But
why are people surprised that a guy who wears a top hat would act
this way? What, the lack of a monocle confused you?
Anecdote Man|9.2.08 @ 2:56PM|#
This just proves my point that the number one thing reducing Guns'N'Roses record sales is Guns'N'Roses.
|9.2.08 @ 3:00PM|#
"Chinese Democracy" has been a punchline for a decade.
If illegally downloading it will it out of it's misery..it's a
kindness.
|9.2.08 @ 3:02PM|#
Just to officially include myself out of those with any interest
whatsoever in the output of these miserably inept poseurs. Despite
your pseudo-pundits assertion to the contrary.
GNR? bleeyachchch
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Brian|9.2.08 @ 3:16PM|#
I'm going to buy the album just BECAUSE they understand the
value of intellectual PROPERTY rights.
Geez people. Get over it.
Just because you LIKE stealing, doesn't make it okay. Stop
pretending that people don't have a right to the fruits of their
labor because its a sound rather than an object.
|9.2.08 @ 3:19PM|#
My favorite part of the Lars Ulrich copyright douchebaggery is when he talked glowingly about being part of a cassette tape copying and distribution program that operated through the US mail when he was a kid on Behind the Music. I guess the statute of limitations makes everything just peachy keen.
|9.2.08 @ 3:22PM|#
The most newsworthy aspect of this whole situation is the
shocking revelation that Guns n' Roses is still hanging
around.
*fires up "Appetite" and rocks out for a few minutes, then gets
back to work*
|9.2.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Why does Slash give a damn about Chinese Democracy's sales anyway? He was kicked out well over 10 years ago!
|9.2.08 @ 3:24PM|#
"...a cassette tape copying and distribution program that
operated through the US mail when he was a kid on Behind the
Music."
Wait, so let me get this straight: Lars Ulrich appeared on "Behind
the Music" as a child, and while he was doing this, a distribution
program operated through the U.S. mail?
tarran|9.2.08 @ 3:26PM|#
I'm going to buy the album just BECAUSE they understand the value of intellectual PROPERTY rights.
Dude, if you need an organization to invade other people's property
(their homes, places of business) in order to "protect" your
"property", it ain't property...
A melody for a tune is not a piece of land, or a car. Stop trying
to pretend it is.
Metal Messiah|9.2.08 @ 3:27PM|#
I just can't consider "Chinese Democracy" to be a Guns and Roses
album.
It's a solo album that Axl Rose has been dicking around with for
the past fifteen years.
And, other than a mild curiosity, I have little interest in it. I'm
definitely not going to be waiting in late to get it. Maybe...
maybe... I'll buy it at a later date if it's particularly
brilliant. I'll have to wait for one of my friends to get it, then
listen to it, before I make a judgment. (Or borrowing a CD now
considered "stealing" as well?)
|9.2.08 @ 3:27PM|#
A melody for a tune is not a piece of land, or a car. Stop
trying to pretend it is.
Stop trying to pretend its yours to take just because it
exists.
Derek|9.2.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Just as a point of reference, Slash hasn't been in GNR for
years. The only remaining member of GNR is, I believe, Axl
himself.
Yes, he's quoted in the article, but he's quoted as a "former
guitarist". I don't think he has any decision-making authority in
the way this proceeds.
TP|9.2.08 @ 3:29PM|#
It seems, at least on IP, that Axl and Slash have finally reconciled. Maybe there's a royalty agreement for future works that's been kept under wraps though I doubt it since that's one of the reasons that led to the initial breakup. Otherwise, it's difficult to see why Slash, Duff, Izzy or any other former GNR member would give two craps about what happens to Axl's new record, especially after he replaced them with the likes of buckethead. As a friend of mine is fond of saying in a perfect "VH1 Behind the Music" narrator impression: "In 1988 Guns 'N Roses was on top of the metal world, but backstage things were falling apart."
Shane Brady|9.2.08 @ 3:30PM|#
I think this is an issue if he stole the IP from the record company or not. Seems different that the Ulrich issue.
|9.2.08 @ 3:30PM|#
tarran,
Dude, if you need an organization to invade other people's
property (their homes, places of business) in order to "protect"
your "property", it ain't property...
So if I steal your laptop and manage to get back to my house with
it, it's no longer property? Your car parked in my garage dissolves
property rights? The police can't come onto my property to return
stolen property to you?
$2|9.2.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Have a look at what's hanging off Slash's "but" there, dumb
newish dude.
The record's unreleased and the arrested guy didn't make it, so
somewhere between its coming into existence and his posting the
files, there was some non-metaphorical stealing involved, to which
he made himself an evident party.
Slash is not the prosecutor. He's stating his objection to what
happened/i>, not stupidly charging that moron with incriminating
himself.
Drink.
|9.2.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Tarran,
"...A melody for a tune is not a piece of land"
Holy crap! Have you ever written an original melody? My guess is
no. It's rather hard to do. In fact we celebrate those who are able
to because it's so difficult.
|9.2.08 @ 3:48PM|#
Maybe if Axel got off of his lazy ass and had finished the record sometime in the last 10 years, he wouldn't have had this problem. This is the most overhyped record since Smile. I suspect G&R would be better off not releasing it and letting people imagine how good it is rather than releasing it and having people be disapointed.
|9.2.08 @ 3:52PM|#
I still can't believe this same argument continues to circle the
drain every time IP comes up.
It doesn't fucking matter whether IP is real property or
not. It can be copied infinitely for free, and the only ways to
stop it are liberty killers and don't even work anyway.
Technology has changed the way IP has to be treated. Get used to
it.
|9.2.08 @ 4:04PM|#
"...the only ways to stop it are liberty killers and don't even
work anyway."
Seems like they used the tried and true method of arresting the
thief.
|9.2.08 @ 4:15PM|#
"""Why does Slash give a damn about Chinese Democracy's sales
anyway? He was kicked out well over 10 years ago!"""
Maybe Axl owes him money.
"""It doesn't fucking matter whether IP is real property or not. It
can be copied infinitely for free, and the only ways to stop it are
liberty killers and don't even work anyway."""
Just because someone can, doesn't mean it should be legal. I have a
feeling one day IP will change technology, once they figure out a
decent way to do DRM. This doesn't affect just music, it affects,
movies and video games too. My guess is that one day, you'll never
own them, you will pay for a monthy service to listen, or possibly,
you'll have to login to the company's website while you listen if
you do buy it.
Why would Libertarians be against musicians making money from the
music they compose?
|9.2.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Why would Libertarians be against musicians making money
from the music they compose?
I'm not. But you can never do DRM well. It's just not possible to
control the copying of bits. You just. Can't. Do. It.
|9.2.08 @ 4:21PM|#
"""Technology has changed the way IP has to be treated. Get used
to it."""
Technology has changed the way privacy has to be treated. Get used
to it.
Technology has changed the way government kicks your door down. Get
used to it.
There are a lot of things technology is changing, I'm not sure that
get used to it is the proper answer.
madmikefisk|9.2.08 @ 4:29PM|#
I dunno... from hearing the leaks so far, I might be more likely
to buy it now than before.
Just sayin'.
|9.2.08 @ 4:33PM|#
"""I'm not. But you can never do DRM well. It's just not
possible to control the copying of bits. You just. Can't. Do.
It."""
Ah come on, a man of your intelligence, you know not to say never.
:-) Granted all attempts so far have been lame, but one day they
will figure something out. Currently with videos, and games it's
oneupsmanship between the industry and hackers. This will continue
until they come up with something unhackable, that's a long shot,
or come up with a method that prevents the actual ownership.
However it gets resolved, as libertarians, we want it to work out
so the songwriters get paid for their work. Or is fuck them suppose
to be the mantra on this issue?
|9.2.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Or is fuck them suppose to be the mantra on this
issue?
The mantra is "come up with a new business model to allow the
creators to profit because IP is fucked as it stands now".
|9.2.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Sammy Candynose Twinskins is here to tell you:
If it can be played, it can be copied. If it can be copied, it can
be traded. Unless you plan on banning all cameras and microphones
too. You can lock a song down in chains; as soon as a legitimate
buyer lines up a mic next to the speaker, or a camera on the
screen, its blown wide open.
DRM is futile. You can only keep secrets if you only give access to
people who also want to keep it a secret. You can't have a secret
you want to sell for $15 a copy to everyone with the cash.
Now, this guy going to jail is pretty much ok with me. He stole it.
Fair enough. But its about as meaningful as tossing some guy in the
clink cause he had a kilo of crank in his trunk. Also a crime. But
it ain't stopping shit on the long term.
|9.2.08 @ 4:48PM|#
"This will continue until they come up with something
unhackable, that's a long shot, or come up with a method that
prevents the actual ownership."
Prevents actual ownership? Yeah, that is a hell of a business
model. They will never perfect DRL without making their product
completely undesirable. They only way they can compete is to make
their product so cheap that it is not worth stealing it. That is
pretty much what Itunes did. Why bother stealing the song and
risking getting a virus or a lousy copy, when you can just buy the
damn thing for a buck? Face reality, the days of making gazillions
selling records are over. Times change.
Invisible Finger|9.2.08 @ 4:57PM|#
I think this is the one of a few instances of IP infringement I
agree is infringement.
The only way to keep intellectual property YOUR property is to
never release a copy of it. Since "Chinese Democracy" was
apparently never intended to be released...
ed|9.2.08 @ 5:10PM|#
We're all gonna want a piece of C.D. when it comes
out
Is that the "royal we"? Anyway, crap property is still
property.
Thieves don't get the concept. They never will.
rich|9.2.08 @ 5:15PM|#
I take issue with the question as phrased:
We're all gonna want a piece of C.D. when it comes
out.
Not those of us who don't think G'n'R or Slash has recorded
anything worthwhile since Use Your Illusion, you know? Velvet
Revolver really ain't all that. G'n'R was of it's time and the time
has passed.
|9.2.08 @ 5:23PM|#
"""Prevents actual ownership? Yeah, that is a hell of a business
model."""
If you can access it for a monthly fee, you don't need to purchase
it, and you could have access to everything at a much lower price.
That may be the buisness model of many things media in the
future.
""""They only way they can compete is to make their product so
cheap that it is not worth stealing it. """
John, they could sell CDs for a buck a piece, people will still
copy them as long as they can. Stealing is always worth it to
people who want something for nothing, unless they get caught by
the man.
|9.2.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Your right Episiarch, they do need a new buisness model, but the oneupsmanship between companies and hackers may result in a model that excludes actual possession someday.
tarran|9.2.08 @ 5:33PM|#
The purpose of property rights is to resolve conflicts over who
gets to say how something is used.
For example consider a toothbrush. Both I and pedant cannot
simultaneously use the toothbrush. The toothbrush can only be held
and operated by one person at a time.
In the absence of property rights, you get the situation where
whoever is actually holding the thing is deciding how it gets used.
Inevitably, if two or more people covet the toothbrush they will
argue over it, and perhaps fight over it (the opening scenes
of The Gods Must be Crazy illustrate this perfectly).
A property right is a way of preemptively deciding who gets to say
how the toothbrush is used, and we call the person with this right
of control the "owner".
Property rights arise in response to economic scarcity. We don't
argue about who owns the air in a room, or who owns the noise
coming out of a TV, for example, since there is no scarcity - as
everyone who wants to enjoy those things can be simultaneously
accommodated. And, and this is very important, property rights do
not require a state to enforce. People can enforce their control by
themselves, keeping their tootbrushes locked in a case handcuffed
to their wrist for example.
Intellectual property, on the other hand does require a state,
since it is the attempt to ape physical objects by artificially
creating economic scarcity.
The lack of real scarcity is obvious: if I hum a tune, I in no way
prevent you from simultaneously humming the same tune. There is no
scarcity at all. Please note the difficulty in conceiving new
patterns is irrelevant at this point, I will address that
later.
So how is scarcity artificially created? By having some
organization that prevents people from making use of certain
patterns. Let's again turn to the guy humming a tune. Ho can we
prevent him from enjoying a tune? We can threaten to hurt him if he
does hum the tune, or demand that he pay a fine (or else we will
hurt him) if we find out after the fact that he hummed a
tune.
If he is humming the tune on his own land, we must invade his land
to seize him and stop him. If he is manufacturing CD's in a
factory, we must seize the CD's, etc.
In order to honor the "intellectual property" rules, we must
override real property rules. If I were to buy a computer, printer,
and paper, everyone would agree that I owned these things. If I
were to type out a story on the keyboard, and print out 100 copies,
according to physical property rules, the resulting printed paper
would belong to me. Under the scheme of "intellectual property"
rules, the paper might become the property of JK Rowling if it
turns out that I had typed out a pattern called "Harry Potter and
the Half Blood Prince".
OK, but if we don't create the artificial scarcity, what incentive
is there for pattern makers? Like eminent domain, and taxing people
to produce notable works like "Piss Christ", isn't intellectual
property one of those ways we violate private property rights for
the good of society?
Not really because
1) It is quite possible to have private copyright: don't sell your
books or perform your music in front of anyone who won't sign a
contract agreeing to copy your patterns. Then, if they should make
copies, you have them for violating their contract.
2) The incentive is there to produce patterns, because people get
the benefits of them. An example is the Linux and BSD-Unix
operating systems, which in effect are free to copy, yet robust and
cutting edge, people worked on these patterns because there were
other benefits than those that accrue to a copyright holder who
sells copies.
Granted, absent the distortion of patent laws and government
copyright the pattern producing industries would be very
differently set up - and some might not exist at all. But the
people producing those patterns would not vanish of the face of the
earth; they would be working on something to put bread on the
table.
However it gets resolved, as libertarians, we want it to work out so the songwriters get paid for their work. Or is fuck them suppose to be the mantra on this issue?
Kind of like fair trade coffee right? Seriously, as attractive as
the labor theory of value is, the idea should not be that just
because someone worked hard making something, they are owed some
guaranteed price for it.
If musicians privately demanded people agree to forego copying
music and enforced these contracts out of their own pockets, I
would not have a problem with that.
It is the demand that tax-payers enforce copyrights, and the
automatic granting of copyrights to anything under the sun, and the
criminal penalties even for inadvertently producing a similar
pattern that gets my dander up.
|9.2.08 @ 5:35PM|#
""""""Prevents actual ownership? Yeah, that is a hell of a
business model."""""
It's made Microsoft Billions. You don't own any MS product. Most
software for that matter. You are licensed to use it only if you
agree to certain conditions. And if MS revokes your license, you
will not be able to use that for which you paid decent money.
B|9.2.08 @ 7:57PM|#
"Slash seems to have no such qualms about bitching over leaked
tracks, and went so far as to hate on Cogill to the L.A. Times,
officially surpassing Lars Ulrich of Metallica for the title of
Biggest Copyright Douchebag"
So protecting your livelihood and protesting the theft of your
intellectual property makes you a douchebag? How about I take some
of your "work" and post it on a website and claim it as my own. I
wonder how long it would take you to threaten me with some sort of
legal repercussions, you stupid asshole.
B|9.2.08 @ 8:07PM|#
"They put him in handcuffs."
That is generally what they do with people who break the law.
tarran|9.3.08 @ 12:36AM|#
"They put him in handcuffs."
That is generally what they do with people who break the law.
Yeah, like that black man and white woman who got married in
Virginia in the 50's. And those assholes who were caught hiding
escaped slaves 100 years earlier.
Fuckers had it coming, right B?
Anti-Globalism|9.3.08 @ 2:02AM|#
Rock'n'roll -- trivial music for trivial minds.
They're only important because the credulous masses worship
them.
And what would we lose if all rock music disappeared tomorrow?
B|9.3.08 @ 12:27PM|#
"Yeah, like that black man and white woman who got married in
Virginia in the 50's. And those assholes who were caught hiding
escaped slaves 100 years earlier.
Fuckers had it coming, right B?"
Firstly, I am curious, how should a person who is arrested be
treated? Should he have not been handcuffed by the police.
Secondly, comparing someone being arrested and handcuffed for theft
to slavery is just plain retarded.
|9.3.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Yeah, what a douchbag. Me, I'm going all the way. I'm going to
steal the computer I'll use to download the songs, steal the CDs
I'll burn them onto, steal the iPod I'll transfer the stolen songs
to, etc. Dell and Apple are a bunch of rich douchebags anyway. They
can afford it.
In fact, I do not believe I should have to pay for anything that is
the result of someone else's hard work. You wrote a book? Give it
to me for free. You made a movie, give it to me for free. You have
no right to make a living or, God forbid, turn a profit, on
anything produced from your talent or skills. Douchebag!
|9.3.08 @ 3:39PM|#
"So protecting your livelihood and protesting the theft of
your intellectual property makes you a douchebag?"
No. It's the hoping that somebody rots in jail for such a minor
offense that makes Slash a douchebag. See, he's "protecting his
livelihood" while hoping that somebody else loses their livelihood,
freedom and tight bunghole all because that person may or may not
have created a more lucrative buzz for the album. That is
why he's a douchebag.
Yeah, I know, it's the same as stealing, robbery, burlarly, theft,
kidnapping, piracy, hijacking, carjacking, etc.
|9.3.08 @ 3:44PM|#
"You wrote a book? Give it to me for free."
What if I check it out of the library, then copy the book in my own
handwriting, using my own paper and my own pen? Do I go to jail? Is
it stealing? Did I ruin your livelihood?
In fact.....libraries should be made illegal. Physical copies
should be done away with. In the future you won't purchase a copy.
You'll purchase a license to view certain media within a specified
time. I gotta hand it to Jack Valenti and Sonny Boner. They really
changed the understanding of copyright law. And by "understanding"
of course, I mean calling it by any number of other unrelated
crimes.
Kirk Lazarus|9.3.08 @ 3:52PM|#
B, you would know retarded. I've told you over and over- Never go full retard- but you never listen.
|9.3.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Re: handcuffs: "That is generally what they do with people
who break the law."
It's a little bizarre because copyright infringement has only
recently become a "crime" (though the bootlegging version of
copyright infringement has been a crime for awhile) because of
lobbyist cash. So it's a little weird thinking that what has always
been a civil liability issue now results in the cops cuffing you
and throwing you in the sodomy pen.
ellipsis|9.3.08 @ 4:58PM|#
I'm surprised no one has said it yet:
You can have anything you want, but you better not take it from me.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245