Freedom of speech violations will cost you

It seems to be considered a crime by the US to repeat the words of another person without paying them for it. There is no longer true justice in the US just punishments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/...ogger_arrested


Blogger sentenced for leaking G N'R album

By ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer Anthony Mccartney, Ap Entertainment Writer – Tue Jul 14, 6:20 pm ET

LOS ANGELES – A blogger who admitted to leaking part of the Guns N' Roses album "Chinese Democracy" was sentenced to a year of probation on Monday.

U.S. District Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams also ordered Kevin Cogill to serve two months of home confinement, subject his computers to government scrutiny and record a public service announcement for the Recording Industry Association of America.

Cogill pleaded guilty earlier this year to one misdemeanor count of copyright infringement for posting nine tracks from the long-awaited Guns 'N Roses album last year.

Cogill apologized for his actions in court Tuesday and said he didn't mean any harm by posting the tracks online.

"I never intended to hurt the artist," Cogill told Abrams. "I intended to promote the artist because I'm a fan."

Abrams noted that Cogill is an artist, and should have known better.

A federal prosecutor pushed for a short prison term to act as a deterrent to others.

"This is the type of case where I believe the court needs to send a strong message," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Missakian.

Too many people think of posting copyrighted work online as a "victimless crime," he said.

Cogill's attorney argued against a prison term, saying his client realized his wrongdoing and had suffered serious repercussions already.

"He did lose his job as a result of this case," defense attorney David Kaloyanides said.

Missakian said after the hearing that while prosecutors hoped Cogill would be incarcerated, the case should serve as a warning to others that the government takes copyright infringement violations seriously.

Abrams said he thought Cogill had learned his lesson, and did not think he would repeat his mistake.

As part of his plea deal, Cogill will have to allow authorities to search or seize his computers.

He will not have to pay any fines or restitution, although authorities at one point calculated the losses from his actions at more than $371,000.

Kaloyanides said after the hearing that arriving at any damage amount was difficult and that sending Cogill to prison could have created a backlash.

"It doesn't help to educate the public of the importance of respecting copyright law when you become too heavy-handed with punishment," Kaloyanides said.

Cogill will have some input into the public service announcement he records for the RIAA, which has used lawsuits to pursue people it suspects of illegally downloading music.

Kaloyanides said he hoped the ads would target fans who upload and download copyrighted works by explaining to them that they're really hurting their favorite bands.

"You need to reach the fans," he said. "He (Cogill) speaks their language."

[Regina]

Maybe I've missed the point here.

Someone took unreleased material which didn't belong to them and posted it on the internet. Is this really freedom of speech? I can't see how really.

I'm not saying that the person who uploaded the content is right or wrong, but they are taking something which doesn't belong to them, which is stealing and poses a risk.

Copyrights of words (from people in various forms from new reports to songs) and their excessive and unjust fines that occur as a result can be viewed as corruption of the 1st amendment and laws created to maintain their financial powers and control the flow of information.

Musicans should want to spread their message to as many people as possible and simply posting the words to a song you hear to share that with people without any intent to profit is not a crime in my opinion certainly not worth the costs or damage as they claim.

Increasing this will be used by news organizations (CNN, BBC, etc) to greatly restricted those reporting the news as a crime itself without approval online.

Some examples of related subjects:

US v. ASCAP is a lawsuit that claims American playing their ringtones in public is illegal and a "performance".

Federal Judge Wants To Copyright News
by Wendy Davis, Friday, June 26, 2009, 3:45 PM

Earlier this week, influential federal appellate judge Richard Posner argued that the future of journalism might require an expansion of copyright law. Specifically, he proposed banning Web sites from accessing, linking to or even paraphrasing copyrighted material without the owner's consent

http://www.mediapost.com/publication...art_aid=108794


Congress shall make no law respecting.... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....

Originally Posted by Regina

Maybe I've missed the point here.

Someone took unreleased material which didn't belong to them and posted it on the internet. Is this really freedom of speech? I can't see how really.

I'm not saying that the person who uploaded the content is right or wrong, but they are taking something which doesn't belong to them, which is stealing and poses a risk.

Stealing is not the same as copying as nothing is actually taken or missing. If you say something and I repeat it to someone one have I stolen something from you of which you may fine me in the courts? Well we have not gotten there yet thankfully.

True justice looks at intent and truth. He wasn't trying to profit off it, he just wanted to share a song many people know the words to as it's played free on the radio which anyone can freely record or listen to and sing out aloud. This should not be a crime.

Human knowledge of all forms should be shared with the people and unjust copyright laws need to be abolished over time.

[Regina]

So where does 'freedom of speech' come into it?