Leader of Music Piracy Group Faces 5 Year Jail Sentence

A 29-year-old man from California has pleaded guilty to his role in a long-running warez-scene release group and now faces up to 5 years in jail. The group, called OSC, ran from 2002 until 2007 and was responsible for the pre-release of the Kanye West album Graduation. It’s connections to ex-members of the previously busted group, Rabid Neurosis, appeared to prove fatal.

According to a release by the Department of Justice, yesterday Richard Franco Montejano of Harbor City, California, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge George H. King to one count of conspiracy to commit willful copyright infringement.

The single charge relates to the pre-release of the Kanye West album, ‘Graduation’, which which according to the DoJ was uploaded to a private server in August 2007, one week before its official release. According to Scene records, it was in fact uploaded 11 days before.

Montejano had previously admitted that from 2002 to 2007 he was the leader of the warez release group OSC (oL-sKOOL-cLASSiCS), a group dedicated obtaining music and making it available to the Scene in advance of its commercial release.

According to court documents, Montejano maintained OSC’s server and also admitted to uploading music to servers operated by other warez groups.

Following the January 2007 break up of another famous release group known as RNS (Rabid Neurosis), Montejano is said to have utilized the group’s two former suppliers known as ‘adeg’ (Bennie Glover) and ‘StJames’ (James Anthony Dockery). Both were employed at a CD pressing plant that manufactured for Universal Music.

Rabid Neurosis had operated over a longer period – between 1999 and 2007 – and were responsible for dozens of major releases including Eminem’s ‘Encore’ and ‘How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb’ by U2.

Following their arrests, Glover and Dockery pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit willful copyright infringement. Both were sentenced on January 15th 2010 to three months in prison and two years of supervised release.

However, in March 2010 two other RNS members, Matthew Chow and alleged group leader Adil Cassim, were found not guilty on charges of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement.

Montejano’s sentencing is scheduled for July 25th where, like those before him in both groups, he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

Bry

Last.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3RJVPKTTI43N3NXGVRPTSQD37M Fgbhnj Gbhnj
  
  http://torrentfreak.com/
Autosleep

One day America will have his entire population in jails, while their Bin Laden coax, enjoys his freedom with more rights than the average soldier who fought and gave blood in Afghanistan and/or Iraq to deal with problems created in the first by their government.

This is justice in a country run by Corporations and Wall Street.
- Mutantscreamy
  
  What the…
  - Aherplederple
    
    I don’t get it either
- wake up sheeple
  
  It will happen.
- DarkFallz
  
  its one of the many reasons wall street was attacked…
- Newworld
  
  I don’t know what country you’re from but most countries suffer from there government being majorly influenced by big corporations
- Renner
  
  First of all it’s ‘hoax’, not ‘coax’ you dumb dumb. And it most certainly is not one if you cared to pay attention, every credible news organization is reporting it as fact. You use adolescent conspiracy theories to justify stealing from people that have more creativity in their feces than you have in your entire being.
  - Anonymous
    
    down, boy. your response is convoluted, also. isn’t “creative” and “kanye” an oxymoron?
  - Gae
    
    ‘every credible news organization is reporting it as fact.’
    
    A fact based on no evidence?
    - Jon7272
      
      news agencies are never wrong are they lol .witch is y we get idiots in parliament media brain washing
  - Autosleep
    
    1st. English isn’t my main language (full stop).
    
    2nd. It’s not “adolescent conspiracy theories”, it’s Critical Thinking. Which means, I don’t eat creative feces like you, just because it was shown on Fox News.
    
    3rd. You are really confused, or maybe I’m the one confused. But are you trying to tell me that the lawyers, copyright enforcers and record labels are creative? Anyway if need to read the OP one more time, because I wasn’t even defending Richard Montejano but criticizing the USA jail system.
    
    Incarcerations create criminals in most cases instead of serving as a lesson to dissuade.
    
    But I bet your credible news organizations told you different.
  - Autosleep
    
    1st. English isn’t my main language (full stop).
    
    2nd. It’s not “adolescent conspiracy theories”, it’s Critical Thinking. Which means, I don’t eat creative feces like you, just because it was shown on Fox News.
    
    3rd. You are really confused, or maybe I’m the one confused. But are you trying to tell me that the lawyers, copyright enforcers and record labels are creative? Anyway if need to read the OP one more time, because I wasn’t even defending Richard Montejano but criticizing the USA jail system.
    
    Incarcerations create criminals in most cases instead of serving as a lesson to dissuade.
    
    But I bet your credible news organizations told you different.
- Linclon
  
  Who the fuck cares if osama is dead or alive? Heck is he even real?
Anonymous

of all the music out there……pre releasing Kanye West ?….. sad….

The man has the biggest ego on the planet….
- http://twitter.com/kanuj kanuj bhatnagar
  
  Yo ANoiXioNA, I’m gonna let you finish, but… well you know the rest.
- Whatever
  
  Counterfeiters have no reason to make an ASCII logo stating a rip. Counterfeiters need to sell something as an original. They prefer to sell a CD rather than sending copyable bytes over the internet.
  
  There may be travelling money within that scene to have higher status by having something sooner. Its like people playing WOW. There are some that want to play fair and others buy their status.
  
  It doesn’t seem to be a business that would thrive. Especially because the “the scene” is supposed to be within a small inaccessible group. To sell, access to a large customer base is needed who cannot get it elsewhere. Counterfeiters are actually a victim of sharing instead of the MAFIAA as people looking for a lower price will now bypass counterfeiters.(MAFIAA wouldn’t have made a sale in any case).
  
  And who would buy Kanye West ?
  
  (I am only guessing here about “the scene”)
  - Ninja
    
    Actually, when ppl buy counterfeit copies they usually don’t buy the originals. I have some experience on that. I try to educate my friends and colleagues into downloading instead of buying a physical (counterfeit) copy of whatever since those ppl earn money on the work of others while downloads (file sharing) has no money involved.
    
    One could argue that torrent sites/trackers/forums make money from advertisements /donations. But what they offer are indexing/tracking/storage services. When you search for Pioneer One, Ubuntu, Android apps and other free content you are generating traffic and revenue for those sites as much as if you are looking for copyrighted content.
    
    Extremist MAFIAA zealots will also say that it’s even worse since they are making money over free stuff. Well, then Facebook is the worst since it makes money on your communications with your friends, on the pics you share (PERSONAL pics). So yeah, just ignore them.
    
    In the end, if they had the digital copies ready for the press, why didn’t they make it available for, say, $10 before even sending it to the factory? Maybe ppl would have bought it instead of downloading for free the pre release content. Not that they’ll ever try to see if it helps decreasing file sharing (or increasing their sales as I sincerely doubt file sharing will stop ever).
    - puddi puddi
      
      Why would people buy counterfeit products? You can’t compete with free lol
    - Ninja
      
      Why did I buy several DVDs last week for content I had previously downloaded for free? Why would you have the experience of the movie theater with your friends when you can watch in your tiny TV at home for free?
      
      Indeed you can’t compete with free.
    - desbest
      
      It’s like paying an expensive price for Starbucks Coffee, you’re not paying for the coffee, you’re paying for the experience.
      
      What an ignorant comment. Without theatres, the entire movie industry wouldn’t exist. Most movies, 90% to be exact, make no profit, and are made with the profits that are made from the blockbuster movies. When people pay for cinema tickets, they’re paying for the production of all the movies that don’t make it in the cinema.
      
      It’s like public healthcare in the UK, if the minority never paid for private healthcare, the UK’s NHS wouldn’t exist.
- Ninja
  
  Well said. We’ll never know for sure.
  
  Still, I just lol on the thought that while one is down many other will take its place.
  
  In the end MAFIAA fails.
- Anonymous
  
  Graduation was probably his best album ever. It IS the only Kanye West album I can listen to.
  
  1. “Good Morning” – Good intro song.
  2. “Champion” – Pretty Decent
  3. “Stronger” – Great club song!
  4. “I Wonder” – BEAUTIFUL song.
  5. “Good Life” (featuring T-Pain) – OK I guess…
  6. “Can’t Tell Me Nothing” – Good song, brings out the rebelious teenager in all of us :)
  7. “Barry Bonds” (featuring Lil Wayne) – CRAP!
  8. “Drunk and Hot Girls” (featuring Mos Def) – Awesome song. Used to listen to this while cruising from club to club.
  9. “Flashing Lights” (featuring Dwele) – Pretty decent.
  10. “Everything I Am” – Alright, nothing extrodinary.
  11. “The Glory” – Don’t even remember this one, must’ve always skipped it.
  12. “Homecoming” - BEST SONG KANYE EVER DID!
  13. “Big Brother” – Pretty good, especially since it was all around the time of Roc-A-Fella’s downfall…
  
  I loved the album, though Kanye himself has gotten to big for his britches, so I am GLAD that I didn’t pay for it. Everything else he has made is garbage.
  - Friend of the People
    
    Someone seems self-righteous. If you loved the album, you should have paid for it. If you don’t like the rest of his stuff, then you could have just avoided that and paid for the good stuff. Kanye is indeed full of himself, but you aren’t a model of virtue in that aspect either.
    
    Reading your post kind of makes me rethink my position on piracy. I have to wonder if this is a common attitude. If so, maybe piracy isn’t as good as I thought it was. This will warrant further consideration.
    - Ugly American
      
      “If you loved the album, you should have paid for it.”
      
      Why? So his record label could keep 99.9% of the revenue? Stupid RIAA shill – if one really wants to support an artist, one should attend live performances and / or purchase that artist’s merchandise. Purchasing plastic discs in this day and age is the best way to screw an artist – you lanky streak of piss.
    - Friend of the People
      
      Politeness please. You strengthen the resolve of those who argue against when you use unkind words.
      
      If an artist signs on with a record label and doesn’t ask for good share of money from the proceeds, isn’t that their own fault? Instead of refusing to pay for any records and deprive the artists of what revenue they could receive, you should support them with your money as well as your words. If an artist wants to exist out of the current system, then we should support them, but if an artist joins the system, then we should either boycott their music out of protest of the system (a complete boycott which means no listening to their music at all) or support them in their decision. If someone wants to get out of the system, then we should support them in that. You screw an artist when you distribute his work without letting him be compensated in any way shape or form.
      
      Article 27 of the Universal declaration of human rights states that “(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”
      
      That means that an artist has the right to protect his own interests in the distribution of his work. You don’t have the right to listen to his music but refuse to pay him. And just because the situation is less than ideal for the artist does not mean that you have a right to force change. You should support the artist if they demand change, but you cannot force it by yourself.
      
      I’m going to reply to ANoiXioNA here as well because my computer has had some trouble posting in the past. First of all, you are right in your assertation that my mind was not changed by the past statement. To be more accurate, I’ve been swayed since the beginning of the year. I used to have a basic anonymous account where I argued in favor of eliminating intellectual property (or made jokes based on memes. Not a proud time for me). I was swayed by arguments like the one made here in the past, but this one was not a mind changer for me. Sorry for the confusion, and now to addressing your actual arguments.
      
      You make the point that the music is free in some formats, but that does not mean it should be free in all formats. Music is on the radio because artists allow radio stations to play their music. The decision to put their music in a free environment is a choice that the artist makes. That is the key to this argument. The artist has the right to control the distribution of his work. He allows it on the radio, so you can listen to it for free on the radio. Netflix pays to host TV shows, so you get to watch TV shows on Netflix. The artist does not allow torrenting of his music, but you do it anyway. There is a discrepancy there. The artist gets to choose. You make a choice based on the options the artist presents you. If you don’t like the options presented, your only moral choice is to not partake in the art at all. Just boycott the music altogether. You won’t suffer much from boycotting something you like, and you will be on the morally right side.
      
      I do have something to say about your statement that anything on a digital medium inherently has no value. I would argue that the work put into it by the creator of the music gives it value. Think about it like this; the demand in this situation is for new, unique and powerful art, and the supply is the people who are capable of creating it. I think that when you say that just because a digital file is infinitely replicatable (sorry for spelling there) that it has no value, you are ignoring the work put into it by the artist. Replicating something already in existence does cost nothing, but creating something new does require work on the part of the artist. If you don’t like the value that the artist places on the work, then you have the right to abstain, you just don’t have the right to enjoy the work while disrespecting the artist’s intentions for it.
      
      Finally, and this is a bit off topic, why do you have all of those ellipses in your writing? It is distracting when I read. I hope this message reaches you, and a good day to both of you. I wish you better than you wished me.
    - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais
      
      You keep talking about what the artist wants. What the artist wants is to get paid handsomely (forever, if possible) to put in as little studio time as necessary, to not have to worry about the business or technical side of things, to maybe go on tour and get good publicity, and to spend the rest of their time as possible deep in the creative process, which preferably involves parties with lots of sex and cocaine. Even if they don’t want any of that, they usually want their art to reach as many people as possible. To these ends, the artist typically surrenders the copyright on their creative works through lopsided contracts with record companies. Financially, the contracts almost always heavily favor the companies, and result in the artist never in their lifetimes owning the copyright, thus stripping them of having any say whatsoever as to whether and how their works are made available to the public.
      
      It’s ridiculous for you to frame it as a moral issue where consumers should respect “the artist’s wishes” in regard to who gets to enjoy and distribute their work, when in fact the artist does not have a say because they’ve made a deal with the devil, a deal in which their income depends far too heavily on the record company’s rapidly eroding and technologically infeasible stranglehold on distribution. Under these contracts, only the record company is in control, and they only act in their own interest: they continually seek the greatest amount of control and revenue for any and all copies, broadcasts, etc. of creative works they own the copyright to (and then some), and they never tell artists or consumers anything definite about their rights, only their obligations. They look for every opportunity to cut expenses, keep the artists indebted to them, avoid and delay royalty payments, and maximize profit. Record companies are fundamentally anti-consumer and anti-artist, always biting at the hand that feeds, only tolerating the whims of the public to the extent that it benefits the company. I see no reason to support this model, even if the law does.
      
      When an artist I want to support has chosen to partner with an entity that’s definitely working against my interest, and that only barely works in the artist’s interest, I feel no guilt about circumventing that arrangement. It also seems paradoxical to say that artists’ wishes for how they get paid should be respected, yet people opposed to the record companies should just boycott the artist entirely rather than enjoying the art free of charge. The artist doesn’t get paid either way, so it really doesn’t matter.
      
      In other words, you’ve proffered three options: (A) buying from authorized vendors as per the law and the record company’s wishes (which you say is the artist’s wishes, by proxy), (B) unauthorized file-sharing as is rampant now, and (C) ignoring the artists entirely. Option A may, depending on contracts, yield some direct financial benefit to the artist, we agree, while B only indirectly benefits them at best, and C definitely does not benefit them at all. Options A and B both benefit society via the art’s propagation – the unfettered propagation in Option B being of greater benefit than the restricted propagation in Option A. Option C has no benefit to society. The choice between B and C is clear: B is the moral high ground, not C. Between A and B, again B seems preferable, especially among those who cannot afford A.
    - Friend of the People
      
      You are correct in one vital aspect: Record labels suck. They manipulate artists and take the majority of the profits, leaving the artists with little-to-nothing. The system needs to be changed. Your problem is that you ignore the fact that the artists entered into the system. We need to support them when they want to circumvent the system but we also should respect the arrangements they make, although I would probably agree that helping an artist get out of the record deals when they attempt to would be the morally correct thing to do
      
      “It also seems paradoxical to say that artists’ wishes for how they get paid should be respected, yet people opposed to the record companies should just boycott the artist entirely rather than enjoying the art free of charge. The artist doesn’t get paid either way, so it really doesn’t matter.”
      
      The artist does get paid when you buy a cd from a record company. The profit for the artist may not be as much as you think it should be, but it still exists. Don’t claim that it does not.
      
      When you end with your description of the three possible approaches to procuring music (I would agree that this is a reasonably accurate presentation of possible options), you have a few things I disagree with. For starters, you take the propagation of art as the sole goal of artistic expression. That is not necessarily true. The right to control of art belongs to the creator of the art. Propagation may be a worthy goal, but in option B, it comes at the expense of the artist’s rights. A better way is to help artists who want to find a new approach to option A, one that does not involve record companies. I also argue that option C is not beneficial to society at large, but it is still moral.
      
      I’m going to end with a note that may annoy some people. you say that “Between A and B, again B seems preferable, especially among those who cannot afford A.” I don’t like this idea that because someone can not afford art, that they should have it for free. It seems to me that if they can not afford it, than they should pursue cheaper leisure options, or work harder to be able to afford it in the future. That may seem harsh, but to me, it seems patronizing to say that someone should not have to pay for something non-essential (emphasis on the non-essential) just because they have lesser means. Forgive me for getting a bit off topic, because that’s not what we’re really here to debate. Forgive me my indiscretion.
      
      Also, thank you for a well-written and thoughtful post. I look forward to seeing your response.
    - Ugly American
      
      “Politeness please.”
      
      That’s for diplomats, politicians and other whores – as an Ugly American, I speak my fvcking mind and shoot straight from the hip.
      
      “You strengthen the resolve of those who argue against when you use unkind words.”
      
      Tree-hugging hippie crap and your grammar takes it in the ass. You probably meant to write “who you argue” instead of “who argue” – and I could give a lesser fvck regarding their “resolve.” As an independent artist, I know EXACTLY what I’m dealing with and EXACTLY what I’m talking about – RIAA = pure evil.
      
      “If an artist signs on with a record label and doesn’t ask for good share of money from the proceeds, isn’t that their own fault?”
      
      Like an artist who wants to land a recording contract with a major label has a fvcking choice – RIAA shill, who in fvck are you kidding? That artist is nothing but an income generator with absolutely nothing to say. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch.
      
      “Instead of refusing to pay for any records and deprive the artists of what revenue they could receive, you should support them with your money as well as your words.”
      
      LOL – as if the artist is actually allowed to keep a substantial portion of earnings from music sales. Fact # 1: The lion’s share goes straight in the label’s pocket. Fact # 2: Artists earn their real money from live performances, merchandising, endorsements and the like – barely a few cents from the sales of plastic discs. Fact # 3: RIAA = pond scum.
      
      “If an artist wants to exist out of the current system, then we should support them, but if an artist joins the system, then we should either boycott their music out of protest of the system (a complete boycott which means no listening to their music at all) or support them in their decision.”
      
      What if the artist is locked into a contract? What then? Should I could continue to make the greedy label wealthier while he / she barely earns anything? Fvck that idea with a rusty hydrant – my support goes exclusively to the artist. End of story.
      
      “If someone wants to get out of the system, then we should support them in that.”
      
      IF he / she is allowed – and that is a HUGE if. Once again, RIAA shill, the issue is not lack of support for an artist but rather lack of support for parasitic labels. Get that through your thick skulls.
      
      “You screw an artist when you distribute his work without letting him be compensated in any way shape or form.”
      
      Hogwash – I am giving he / she FREE promotion / publicity and putting money directly in his / her pocket by attending live performances, purchasing merchandise, etc. The fact of the matter is that artists are being ROYALLY screwed by their own labels and the RIAA shills who pretend to represent their interests. It’s 2011 – nobody in their right mind is falling for this scam any longer. The days of your cartel / monopoly are numbered. Die already.
      
      Article 27 of the Universal declaration of human rights states that “(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”
      
      “…of which he is the author” – so, are the labels “authors?” No. Case closed.
      
      “That means that an artist has the right to protect his own interests in the distribution of his work.”
      
      …without the need for an intermediary. Their is no need for a middleman – THAT is the point which you shills always neglect to address.
      
      “You don’t have the right to listen to his music but refuse to pay him.”
      
      Correction – labels HAVE NO RIGHT to decide what I should listen to, what I should pay for that “right,” or what the actual artist should keep. You RIAA types are the most arrogant bunch of cretins I’ve ever had the displeasure of knowing…
      
      “And just because the situation is less than ideal for the artist does not mean that you have a right to force change.”
      
      I most certainly do – not just because I’m an artist myself but also because I have a moral obligation to combat any form of injustice which comes to my attention. This includes all forms of exploitation.
      
      “You should support the artist if they demand change, but you cannot force it by yourself.”
      
      I can do whatever the fvck I please regarding direct support of any artist I deem worthy. Spew your RIAA propaganda elsewhere – I’m about to vomit in your cocaine. It won’t be pretty, lad – take my word for it.
    - Friend of the People
      
      You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself. You also seem to assume a homogeneity of thought on the side opposing you. Know this; I don’t support the RIAA. They are a group of crooks who prosecute young children and poor college students. They have no place in this world, and neither do most record labels. I think that removing the intermediary would be a wonderful way for music and other forms of art to develop, but I do recognize that forcing that change without the consent of the artist is immoral. You can’t force artists into the model you think they should work under. You can support the artists who do and avoid the ones who don’t, but you can not force an artist to accommodate your idea of how his music should be distributed.
      
      “…of which he is the author” – so, are the labels “authors?” No. Case closed.”
      You didn’t If an artist cedes power to a label for any reason, we should respect that choice. If the artist wants to leave, we should support him in doing so, but we do not want to support a label in any way shape or form, our only moral option is to not listen to the music.
      
      “What if the artist is locked into a contract? What then? Should I could continue to make the greedy label wealthier while he / she barely earns anything? Fvck that idea with a rusty hydrant – my support goes exclusively to the artist. End of story.” The answer here is simple; it’s the artist’s own damn fault. They should have read the damn contract before signing. Make their story as public as possible so that others don’t make the same mistake.
      
      “Fact # 3: RIAA = pond scum.” True. “pure evil”, I reserve judgment on that until I see them eating puppy burgers.
      
      Finally, regarding politeness, it’s generally regarded as a virtue in America, or at least it is here in the south. If you can’t accept that, think of it pragmatically. You’re more likely to attract support for your cause by being polite than by acting like you have a stick up your ass.
    - Anonymous
      
      You always say that…… well….. you reword it ……use different names….
      
      “”"Reading your post kind of makes me rethink my position on piracy.”"”
      
      Your comments fool NO one…….
      
      OMG….. how stupid do YOU think we are……….
      
      lets look @ your comment history…….. http://pastebin.com/CcXCE7ZH
      
      quote = you….
      “”Copying is wrong because it does not reward the creators of new content”"
      
      You never had to “”rethink your opinion”" on filesharing……
      You where against it …. before you posted this comment.
      
      Shill , troll..
    - Anon
      
      “If I hear a song on the radio or club or on spotify/youtube … and love it…. Should i then , have to pay for it ?”
      
      No. The radio has always been an ad model. You pay through your attention to the ads. Use an ad blocker and that model won’t work either.
      
      A club pays a yearly licensing fee to a collection agency like ascap or bmi or sesac. They pay for the rights to play the music.
      
      Spotify has a subscription cost or their free model, also paid for through advertising revenue.
      
      YouTube is a Google property and is funded through their ADsense program.
      
      All these instances are paid for through some other means. The cost of the music is in the cost of your drink or your cover price at the club. You don’t have the right to copy or distribute and if you want a copy you buy a copy or do without it. You’ll never have the right to distribute someone elses merchandise, and that’s in the TF news everyday now. My God, learn something before you flap your ignorant lips.
      
      The pirate mentality really is on par with a fucking idiot.
    - Friend of the People
      
      Aside from the insult at the end (very unnecessary), this is pretty close to what I was trying to say. Well done sir.
    - Anon
      
      It’s not insulting when it’s the demonstrable truth. It’s been a dozen years since Napster. I think it’s reasonable to say “learn the facts and add to the discussion” or shut up. If you can’t get it after a dozen years of study and debate, you’re just an idiot.
    - Anonymous
      
      Well done…. for a shill comment spoken like a true troll.
    - Anonymous
      
      “”My God, learn something before you flap your ignorant lips.”"
      
      Your shill comment shows me your lack of actual understanding of the issue you come here to argue against.
      
      You have NO clue….. Literally……
      
      I should know , I am a member of the PRS …. the group that collects money from radio stations etc.. For public PERFORMANCES.. and gives some of it to me…., FFS … I even get money from my music being on Jukeboxes in bars…
      Getting the odd track played on National radio helps.
      I make more money from performance income than I ever did from sales.
      
      Does that fact hurt your brain ? does it ?
      
      I am a “”creative media creator”" who does not use “”copyright”" as a way to rip individuals off for sharing stuff they like…..
      
      So long as they don’t sell my music and , con me out of sales….
      Which would be hard….. I haven’t sold music for the last few years , since I stopped releasing on vinyl……
      
      YET YOU and your SHILL friends…. claim to be on my side…..By putting people in jail for sharing….NOT profiting… sharing….
      
      I refuse to join the MCPS tho due to their anti-pirate policy that tries to punish fans of music for sharing it with their friends…
      
      1. Radio pay for a public performance license…..based on INDIVIDUAL tracks played
      
      2. Clubs Pay a “”blanket license” IF under 1000 people.. (same as radio if over 1000 people ( track-lists submitted to PRS ))
      
      3. Mechanical COPYRIGHT & Performance RIGHTS are two different things..
      
      “”The pirate mentality really is on par with a fucking idiot. “”
      
      Back @ YOU……. The ANTi-pirate mentality really is on par with a fucking idiot.
      
      Funny how the Creators of media are not that pro copyright !
      
      It’s the distributors and label stakeholders…. who funnily enough ……
      own the studios……… who in turn …….. Own the mechanical copyright…….
    - Friend of the People
      
      I would say this to your first question. The important part is not whether or not you pay for the music, but whether or not you are getting it in a distribution model approved by the artist. Also, there is a fundamental difference between hearing it on the radio, which is random and out of your control, and owning it yourself.
      
      Moving on from that, I’m glad that a more free distribution model as worked for you. It sounds like offering your music for free (if that is what has been happening; I’m not sure I got all the details perfectly) has helped increase your income. That may be great for you, but you can’t force others to take up your business model. You can recommend that other artists follow your footsteps, but piracy forces others to change the way that they feel comfortable doing business. If someone has to change their business model because of natural economic shifts or a bad business model, that is fine. If someone has to change because people take their product without taking part in their business model, that is a problem.
      
      And finally, some creators of media are very pro-copyright. Don’t take yourself and the people you know as a model of what the entire population is like.
      
      Actually, that’s not the final thing. You say that people are put in jail for sharing. The entire problem is that their sharing gives people permanent copies without the artist’s consent. That is the problem. That violates the artist’s right to control over the “material interests” from their product.
      
      Ok, new final thing. Please be more polite. You can’t really harp on Anon for being rude to you if you’re going to turn around and do it to him. Neither of you sounds even remotely convincing when you do that.
      
      And again, what’s with the ellipses?
    - Anon
      
      At first I thought your earlier question about “paying to only listen” indicated a poor grasp of our issues at hand, but this foolish rant truly secures it.
      
      It takes a special kind of deep seated ignorance to forget about the costs of developing and creating products so you can pretend duplication is all that ever matters. Some people here comprehend research and development, basic economics, how digital technology works, things that enliven and enrich our discussions. You are not one of those people.
    - Friend of the People
      
      I posted a response to you above. I was worried about being able to post twice, but it seems my fears were unfounded. Hope you see the response. Have a good day. And remember, despite what I argue, I do think that there are serious problems with the current system that need to be changed, but I don’t think you’re going about it the right way. I would love to debate the fine points of it with you later. Have a good day, and I wish you better than you wish me :)
    - SomeAsian
      
      Stop samefaging. Go back to your bridge and stop bothering us.
    - Friend of the People
      
      Define “samefagging” please.
    - Friend of the People
      
      Define “samefagging” please.
    - some
      
      “samefagging”… does one have to define it?
    - Friend of the People
      
      Kind of. I’m really not sure what he’s trying to say. I know he wants me to leave, but I’m interested in exactly how he is saying it.
  - Anonymous
    
    awww …. My respect for you has gotten … softer , worst-er , slower , weaker.. : )
    
    I can never forgive Kanye West for bastardising Daft Punk and claiming the glory from it …….
    ( but my preference is House/techno ….proper club music : ) … )
    
    Watch Daft Punk perform it live….. And Kanye West looks like a talentless prick who just talks and directs audio engineers…..
    
    Daft Punk – Harder Better Faster Stronger (live) *emi youtube page
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x84m3YyO2oU
    - Friend of the People
      
      They are damn good. I’ll have to look up more of their stuff. Thanks for the link.
    - Friend of the People My Ass
      
      Hey fag, isn’t it time for you to go?
    - Friend of the People
      
      Apparently not. Feel free to ignore me though. Or laugh at me. Both are quite easy. I think I’ll stick around until at least tomorrow. Maybe I’ll see you later :)
http://twitter.com/stormstereo stormstereo

Is there anyone, even in the court room, that believes this punishment to be proportional to this crime?
- Ninja
  
  MAFIAA stooges believe that with Al Qaeda-ish extremism.
- Anonymous
  
  That is only the maximum and a subject I doubt they ignored while they did their infringement. The reality of getting 3 months at the Government operated holiday camp sounds a lot better. This may get reduced to 6 weeks for good behaviour or be out in 2 or 3 weeks due to prison overcrowding.
  
  The end point would be to always keep aware of the law when you plan to do something unlawful. You get caught and then you can live with the conviction.
http://twitter.com/stormstereo stormstereo

Is there anyone, even in the court room, that believes this punishment to be proportional to this crime?
Pingback: Leader of Music Piracy Group Faces 5 Year Jail Sentence – Clonevideos Official Blog
Pingback: Leader of Music Piracy Group Faces 5 Year Jail Sentence | TorrentFreak | my blog
John Space

How did they catch him? Wasn’t that TXT with the nick supposed to protect him?
Pingback: Leader of Music Piracy Group Faces 5 Year Jail Sentence | Torrentfreak.com
Pingback: Leader of Music Piracy Group Faces 5 Year Jail Sentense
hotdog

Oh no the world is coming to an end because of music !!!
anonymous

And someone will replace him, its a shame he is being charged for a victimless crime but it won’t make a difference.
- Friend of the People
  
  A pity. Hopefully he doesn’t get sentenced for the full amount. He doesn’t deserve that kind of punishment.
anonymous

And someone will replace him, its a shame he is being charged for a victimless crime but it won’t make a difference.
Uche

Real-time updating is paused. (Resume)
- Luls
  
  Real-time updating is enabled. (Pause)
  - Ugly American
    
    Real-time shilling is enabled – where are you, Murdock? (Full speed ahead)
Whatever

As the MAFIAA likes to inflate numbers into the thousands i wonder how long someone would get punished in the US for actually emptying a physical media store in the middle of the night (And ofcourse none of the CD’s ever to be found again).

It is not “imaginary property” infringment but in this case there is real damage to a MAFIAA store.
- Anonymous
  
  They would get the same charge any theft would. EMPTYING it would most likely be a felony because it’s over $2000.00. But I GUARANTEE YOU, with a good lawyer, they could probably get off, due to lack of evidence. Online piracy however has been looked at as IP address=Fingerprints, DNA, and a signed picture of yourself & a driver’s license all left at the scene of a crime. It’s really ridiculous.
- Kawanda
  
  1st offense probation. I met someone who ripped off $30k in copper and thats all he got. He was connected to the italian mafiaa and bandidos however.
  - Ninja
    
    Shows that file sharing is a much more serious crime that should receive death penalty. [/irony]
Anonymous

Wow thats messed up man, Hope the Kangaroo Courts give the dude a break. Wow.
real-privacy.es.tc
Pingback: P2PTalk » Leader of Music Piracy Group Faces 5 Year Jail Sentence
Pingback: El líder de un grupo de distribución de música pirateada se enfrenta a 5 años de prisión — Bitelia
Ryzzo

Graduation sold 957,000 copies it’s first week and has been certified double platinum with almost 2.2 million copies sold worldwide (wiki)…

Clearly the damage done by the pre-release killed the album, led to lost sales, and Kanye is working as a janitor in a high school… oh wait…
Pingback: El líder de un grupo de distribución de música pirateada se enfrenta a 5 años de prisión | BytNews
Guest

Did they tortured him for him to admit to so many things?

Seriously!
Predator

For the corporate parasites who are destroying our democracy it is too late to surrender.
Pingback: Leader of Music Piracy Group Faces 5 Year Jail Sentence | Links Daily
Foff

Pre releasing music is not the same as pre releasing a movie. It is just another outlet for advertising. Unlike a movie people listen to music over and over again. I used to buy music but I never buy now and likely never will again. I have gigs of music but mostly when I feel like something I just find it on youtube.

I do not see the point any more of owning music. I have no sense of ownership if I buy digital bits. It is hard to feel like you own something you cannot see. Your digital purchase will never ever have any historical or collection value. There is no cover art or anything else other than raw music with a digital purchase. This makes a digital purchase worth no more than listening to it on youtube which is free. I might pay a $.05 for a digital track but no more just for the convenience sake. I think right now the only reason people are willing to pay so much for digital books is that they are having fun with their new gadgets. When that wears off they realize how stupid they are.

The point is this justice serves no one. There is zero proof that anyone lost any money as a result of these uploads. It may be a self serving argument but if they did not upload it someone else would have. The point is trying to stop file sharing especially music is even stupider then prohibition which never worked at all. The distribution system is far to efficient for any prosecution to have any effect at all.

If we all had a mini stargate and could send items anywhere in the world instantly the drug war would be a joke. Think about if anyone could get drugs from the source instantly in their home without any fear of getting caught can you imagine how obsolete drug laws and enforcement would be? That is what the internet is to digital files. The cat is out of the bag the entertainment industry needs to adjust to a new economy. Their model ought to be to sell a bazillion copies real cheap in the first few days while it is hot and forget about a small revenue stream for a lifetime.
- Friend of the People
  
  Kind of a pity. Just because people can do it means that they will, regardless of whether or not it’s morally sound. Kind of depressing.
  - Friend of the People My Ass
    
    Still bugging?
    - Friend of the People
      
      Yep
    - Friend of the People
      
      Yep
coffeeright

This is, mehh. I do not like that. Grrr I guess for all the good news, there will be bad news. Though, that is way too much of a sentence. I don’t think this person should get any sentence, lol. Or, at least, just a tiny sentence because, it is wrong to go and release things which aren’t even in the mainstream.
Rekrul

When did music become this all important thing that the whole world depends on? It’s like it’s now considered one of life’s necessities, like air, food and water. Let’s re-shape the entire justice system to support MUSIC. Let’s kill new inventions and services to protect MUSIC. Let’s ruin people’s lives over MUSIC.
coffeeright

. Arguments like these make me wonder how much of this copyright stuff is fact, and how much is opinion and personal ethics. For example, an opinion would be:
“If an artist signs on with a record label and doesn’t ask for good share of money from the proceeds, isn’t that their own fault? Instead of refusing to pay for any records and deprive the artists of what revenue they could receive, you should support them with your money as well as your words”
The problem is the artist usually does not make any of the money. Copyright people make the money. These people that promote the artists make almost all of the money, while the artist may still be deprived of the money. Also, once music and digital media is mainstreamed into the public, it pretty much is free. Imagine this situation. Imagine if you could go into a store, and take something off of the shelf. As soon as you take it, it will replicate itself, but this will happen if you do not pay. What would you do? Would you go into the store and take what you want without paying, or would you pay for your things? This is yet again, an opinion question. The thing is, we will never all agree on the ethical rights and wrongs, and we will never agree on if piracy is right or wrong. I know if things I took just replicated, I would probably take a lot of things for free, such as books, CD’s, and other forms of information.
My opinion: Media should be free and have no cost.
Also, we all act on our opinions in a different way. For example, one person may decide to just pirate music to listen to it, while others may decide that they want to boycott the music. The problem with a boycott is that no one would want to do that. Music united us; we created music from the beginning of society. We all share and connect through music. A boycott would be completely impossible, and probably would never occur.
In conclusion, I am beginning to see that our ethics are all different in regards to piracy. Some people may believe it is okay to take free music, whereas other people will have other arguments saying how it is wrong. Trying to argue these things will just cause an unending circle.
- Friend of the People
  
  Hey, I see a quote from me in there. In fact, I see quite a few of my arguments I think that obliges me to respond.
  
  I agree with you that the current system of minimal profits for artists is a serious problem. It needs to change. I think that in the new digital age, artists can probably benefit from more direct internet advertising and distribution that minimizes or eliminates record agents. There is no reason why record companies should have nearly as much revenue as they do. We agree there, but I don’t think that media should be made completely free. Work does go into media, particularly for the more complex types such as movies and video games. Just because the product can be replicated does not mean that it has no value. The value is inherent in the work done to reach the final product, although this is problematic because that value is subjective. Because the artist has rights over the distribution of their work, the value inherent in the work to reach the product is equal to whatever the artist thinks it should be, and he should therefore have the right to ask whatever he wants for the use of his work. If you disagree over the value and his asking price, your only MORAL option is to not partake in his work.
  
  I know people will not boycott music. Even though I only suggested that people not buy (and not listen to) music from artists they think are too expensive, I know people won’t. They see no punishment for wrongdoing, so they act immorally. If no one punishes lawbreakers, than people will break the laws, but in this case the only way to know who to is breaking the law is usually to violate the rights of all suspected peoples. I’m trying to show that it is immoral and largely harmful when people take the artist’s decisions into their own hands, even if they believe they are acting on the artist’s behalf.
  - Friend of the People My Ass
    
    Yada yada
    - Friend of the People
      
      Indeed.
    - Friend of the People
      
      Indeed.
  - Dutchmcfly
    
    Artists dont dictate the cost of their cd’s unless they have supreme control over their careers which many dont, so it is in fact a third party that has decided for them the monetary value of there work.
    
    If you love an artist then you are gonna buy their album arent you? Your gonna go see them in concert arent you? If your not and you dont then you are only robbing yourself of future music coz ther label is gonna drop em like a steaming turd.
    
    Music is made to be listened to, it should be rewarded (and it is) but to tell someone they are morally wrong for dl’ing is ridiculous. If you love an artist’s music and you dl their latest album and dont go onto to buy their record or go to see them live then your an idiot.
    - Friend of the People
      
      They have given the third party the power to decide for them. It was almost definitely a bad decision for them to do so, but it’s not your responsibility or right to act on that in the artist’s stead. My point is only that just because you hate the third party so much that you refuse to give them any money in any situation does not justify copying the music without paying. The point is not that people should actually stop listening to music, the point is that people should pay for what they listen to. And many people don’t buy the albums. a common problem I have seen (and I know this is personal experience but it is all I have right now) is that people will pay for maybe the top 3-4 groups that they love, but will refuse to pay for anything else. For example, my girlfriend paid for Nirvana, Fallout Boy and Rammstein, but refuses to pay for anything else in her musical collection because she doesn’t believe that the bands are deserving of the money (and probably more centrally because she is cheap and does not want to spend any money.
      
      I mean, think of it like this; if you use downloading in order to sample a song or album and determine if it’s worth paying for, that’s probably fine. No one would really complain about that much if the initial download led to a decision to either buy the album or not listen to the music. But the very common third choice is “I like the music but I don’t want to pay” Or “I don’t like them quite enough to pay but I still want to listen”. That is the problem. If someone bought everything he liked, I would have no quarrel with him.
  - Dutchmcfly
    
    Artists dont dictate the cost of their cd’s unless they have supreme control over their careers which many dont, so it is in fact a third party that has decided for them the monetary value of there work.
    
    If you love an artist then you are gonna buy their album arent you? Your gonna go see them in concert arent you? If your not and you dont then you are only robbing yourself of future music coz ther label is gonna drop em like a steaming turd.
    
    Music is made to be listened to, it should be rewarded (and it is) but to tell someone they are morally wrong for dl’ing is ridiculous. If you love an artist’s music and you dl their latest album and dont go onto to buy their record or go to see them live then your an idiot.
Obamasworld

Obama is Hollywoods errand boy
Ugly American

Reasoned Murdock of the people – this imbecile doesn’t know when to quit.
Amilius

All I read was Kanye West and warez group and stopped reading after that.
Pingback: Canopy Adventure Tour Mexico – Guided Tours and Vacation
http://www.facebook.com/jhborden James H Borden

Why does the U.S. not crack down on china? No really dont answer that. But seriously kind of a douche bag move not to go after china they counterfeit everything and make a huge profit illegal as anything and they do nothing besides go after some punk asses sharing songs damn I use to dub my cassetes back in the day whoopty woo and the most important point is kanye does suck. Snoop Dogg is king. ;)
Pingback: Yellow 1 0Mm Solid Perfectina Necklace | Necklaces and Pendants
Anonymous

http://getmp3forfree.eu
Free Mp3 Search, Download and Listen Engine + Music Videos !!!!!
Pingback: Carolina Pad Chocolate Pick Up Sticks 15021 | Ganoderma Coffee
Pingback: El líder de un grupo de distribución de música pirateada se enfrenta a 5 años de prisión | Linkeando: La Isla Buscada

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Leader of Music Piracy Group Faces 5 Year Jail Sentence

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

The Pirate Bay Moves to .SX as Prosecutor Files Motion to Seize Domains

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed