Danny Sapko discovers… (now including follow up vid that is worse!)

[Merton]

3 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

What crime has been committed? Pretending to play guitar isnt illegal.  

 

Jonny

Passing off other people’s music as your own is basically theft isn’t it?

 

Selling a guitar which had been given to you for exposure but then not given said exposure isn’t illegal but is highly dubious behaviour.

[fretmeister]

8 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

What crime has been committed? Pretending to play guitar isnt illegal.  

 

Jonny

 

 

1: He sold transcriptions of other people's work claiming it was his work.

2: He released music on Spotify and claimed he was the only composer but he wasn't a composer of the tunes at all.

 

Both are fraud / obtaining money by deception. Not just civil disputes but actually criminal offences.

[Beedster]

10 minutes ago, peteb said:

 

That rarely happens for white collar crimes, especially in finance and related fields. 

 

 

That's the truth of it, and any percentage applied to the confiscation of proceeds versus number of prosecutions would be dependent on the rate of prosecution, the estimates of unlawful gains etc. In short, the overall percentage of money confiscated versus money stolen is far lower than would appear - the reality with most fraud is this it goes undetected or if detected unpunished and if punished often at nothing like equivalence 

 

10 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

Often it will be the cost and likelihood of recovery vs the amount recovered.

 

No one is going to pay thousands of pounds to recover a few YouTube royalties.

 

 

That's true

[BabyBlueSound]

19 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

What crime has been committed? Pretending to play guitar isnt illegal.  

 

Jonny

 

For example, promising small gear manufacturers that you'll review their gear, then you don't, then you actually SELL said gear instead of sending back to the manufacturer... I think that's actual theft.  

 

Selling the transcript for other people's solos (who are also trying to sell the same transcript they ACTUALLY wrote)... I think that's theft too.  

 

Just... read some, man. It was never about the pretending part.

[jonnybass]

10 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

 

 

1: He sold transcriptions of other people's work claiming it was his work.

2: He released music on Spotify and claimed he was the only composer but he wasn't a composer of the tunes at all.

 

Both are fraud / obtaining money by deception. Not just civil disputes but actually criminal offences.

Im not a lawyer, but isnt it Copyright infringement, i.e. the denial of profits which the creator is entitled to? which is a civil matter rather than criminal? until it gets to mass production of counterfeit goods.

 

Jonny

[jonnybass]

1 minute ago, BabyBlueSound said:

 

For example, promising small gear manufacturers that you'll review their gear, then you don't, then you actually SELL said gear instead of sending back to the manufacturer... I think that's actual theft.  

 

Selling the transcript for other people's solos (who are also trying to sell the same transcript they ACTUALLY wrote)... I think that's theft too.  

 

Just... read some, man. It was never about the pretending part.

Thanks for being condescending, I can and have read this.  This guy made most of his money from pretending to play guitar, therefore to take his income is to take money he has made by pretending to play guitar.

 

If the problem is if the 'theft' of gear iwhy is the majority of the content about his passing off playing and writing music as his own ?

 

also again I'm no lawyer but to me theft would be if the guitar was not given but loaned...ie can i borrow your lawnmower, i then sell it. Thats theft.  This may be more a case of "Can you give me that lawnmower you have made for free as i review lawnmowers, its my property i can then sell it and its not fraud, If i agree to review it then its possibly gained under false pretences (which may be fraud and theft) but that would depend on the detail such as I'll review it by 2024 etc.. certainly breach of contract, which again would be a civil matter...but definately morally wrong 

 

Jonny 

[fretmeister]

16 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

Im not a lawyer, but isnt it Copyright infringement, i.e. the denial of profits which the creator is entitled to? which is a civil matter rather than criminal? until it gets to mass production of counterfeit goods.

 

Jonny

 

It's both. The fact that Civil action can be taken for an IP dispute does not prevent there being a criminal offence.

 

Same in all manner of things. Many criminal offences have a linked civil one. "Conversion" is the civil equivalent of "Theft". In a civil matter the result would be an order to pay compensation / loss of income etc. In the criminal one it would be either a fine (payable to the state) or prison.

 

Punching someone in the face is a criminal offence with criminal penalties. It is also causing a Personal Injury that can be sued upon as a civil matter.

 

Pursuing one option does not mean the other cannot be pursued as well.

 

 

ADDITION:

 

Not to forget that the IP owner - the real composer can take action against GT for IP problems but a purchaser of a song via a streaming service cannot take the same action for IP... because the purchaser doesn't have an interest in the IP. The purchaser has been a victim of deceit = fraud. The real composer has been a victim of theft and an IP issue and has probably been denied income because of it.

 

So - it's a multy-layered thing. But ultimately the evidence against GT suggests that he would fail to successfully defend civil and criminal actions against him...

Edited yesterday at 10:40 by fretmeister

[jonnybass]

26 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

 

It's both. The fact that Civil action can be taken for an IP dispute does not prevent there being a criminal offence.

 

Same in all manner of things. Many criminal offences have a linked civil one. "Conversion" is the civil equivalent of "Theft". In a civil matter the result would be an order to pay compensation / loss of income etc. In the criminal one it would be either a fine (payable to the state) or prison.

 

Punching someone in the face is a criminal offence with criminal penalties. It is also causing a Personal Injury that can be sued upon as a civil matter.

 

Pursuing one option does not mean the other cannot be pursued as well.

 

 

ADDITION:

 

Not to forget that the IP owner - the real composer can take action against GT for IP problems but a purchaser of a song via a streaming service cannot take the same action for IP... because the purchaser doesn't have an interest in the IP. The purchaser has been a victim of deceit = fraud. The real composer has been a victim of theft and an IP issue and has probably been denied income because of it.

 

So - it's a multy-layered thing. But ultimately the evidence against GT suggests that he would fail to successfully defend civil and criminal actions against him...

Thank you for this this is why i love Basschat

[Burns-bass]

2 hours ago, Beedster said:

 

I missed that first time around  

 

This would be considered fair use of a trademark. 

[fretmeister]

27 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

Thank you for this this is why i love Basschat

 

Obviously some practicalities come into it... imagine rocking up to Scotland Yard with a "GT lied to me and because of that lie I spend £9.99 on an album and I want you to arrest him please!"

 

The reaction from plod would be err, somewhat dismissive. Unless of course there were hundreds of similar complaints made. 

But a lack of action by the police doesn't change how the law does apply to it.

 

So in reality the most likely action will be someone suing him in a civil matter. At the moment there doesn't deem to be much appetite from the composers of the tunes to do that, but maybe D'Angelico or Laney will. They both spent a lot of money developing and launching signature products and they have reputations to protect.

 

They also have the assets to do it too.

[Hellzero]

3 hours ago, Leonard Smalls said:

Charley's put up a vid too! 

 

 

I think Charles is a really clever person and he sums up the issues in the video very well.

 

His proposal at the end proves his empathy for the people who have had their music stolen, with some good exposition for them too afterwards.

 

Congratulations to him for that!

 

Edited yesterday at 11:53 by Hellzero
Grammar

[peteb]

39 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

So in reality the most likely action will be someone suing him in a civil matter. At the moment there doesn't deem to be much appetite from the composers of the tunes to do that, but maybe D'Angelico or Laney will. They both spent a lot of money developing and launching signature products and they have reputations to protect.

 

 

But they are unlikely to do so. They won't appreciate having got caught up in this and pursuing him through the courts is likely to be embarrassing and won't do any good to the brand. Far better to cut ties with him and draw a line under the whole affair. 

 

[Stub Mandrel]

3 hours ago, jonnybass said:

What crime has been committed? Pretending to play guitar isnt illegal.  

 

Jonny

 

Copyright theft.

 

Taking someone else's work and passing it of as your own.

[Leonard Smalls]

3 hours ago, jonnybass said:

What crime has been committed?

He doesn't half look smug.

IIRC, this is the offence of "Appearing so self-satisfied as to outrage the Public Decency".

[jonnybass]

13 minutes ago, Leonard Smalls said:

He doesn't half look smug.

IIRC, this is the offence of "Appearing so self-satisfied as to outrage the Public Decency".

Guilty as charged!!!! Stone him   

 

Jonny

[chriswareham]