Italian Politician Openly Admits to Pirating Music

Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni (pictured), who in the past has readily admitted to downloading music illegally, reiterated that he still obtains music in this fashion and also criticized France’s “three-strikes” policy against file-sharers.

Maroni, who is in a band himself, first admitted to pirating music back in 2006, and defended the practice by saying that it’s not the same as stealing from a supermarket, according to an article on Torrent Freak.

Maroni added:

It is as if the owner of this computer where I’m going to take the music from did a copy of a CD he bought and gave it to me, something that normally happens when we buy a CD and make copies for our friends.

A spokesperson from the country’s Federation of the Italian Music Industry (FIMI) wasn’t too overjoyed about Maroni’s comments, stating, “The Minister should consider the risk to jobs and loss of revenues to the state because of digital piracy.”

Regarding France’s Hadopi law, which was backed by French President (and pirate himself) Nicolas Sarkozy, Maroni said, “Introducing heavy penalties such as those in France to disconnect people from the Internet is wrong and does not work.”

Maroni hopes to someday create a “great national site where people can legally download music for free.” He believes that advertisers and sponsors could pick up the costs of such a service.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Nessmk2 says:

    Part of the problem of piracy is the uncertainty it places in the market for goods. Imagine for a moment that there is no piracy (or whatever your prefered term is, as it seems like it’s no longer in vogue with some people), and you have a much more predictable market to corps, and also, usually, a larger market. This means they can lower prices and make up the difference in quantity, and have less waste in the form of unsold CDs on shelves, as they no longer have to more or less throw darts at a board to see how much/little piracy will effect sales. They could tailor their production and prices to the size of their market, possibly improving their product.

    Now, would this make a significant difference? It’s hard to tell, with piracy numbers all over the place for different types of media. It would give them an opportunity, but it’s very possible that big business would just use it to keep doing the same old thing and get more money. It all depends.

  2. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    In the US any distribution of a copyrighted item without a license to do so is illegal always has been and seemingly always will be, you once had some rights to make backups and even acquire out of print items but that has mostly been done away with due tot he times and the DMCA.


    Copyright should be focusing on money made from distribution not distribution and copies(copy circumvention) itself…….. if you focus on distribution and copies you damage and take away the public’s freedoms and rights via over reactionary and downright silly enforcement if the system can afford to police it anyway…. but if you focus on those that sell without a license its much easier to manage and track!

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people!

  3. 0
    asmodai says:

    This is why a new model is needed.

    It’s is just accepted by the vast majority these days that people will rip off/pirate/share/borrow media (not just music) and there isn’t really anything wrong with it. (regardless of how incorrect that perception is)


    38 bucks to distribute 4 albums on Amazon, puts his own tracks up on torrents etc to promote them, still makes money.

    Adapt or die imo.

  4. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Since when was that illegal? It’s always been my understanding that it was fine to make copies and even give them to friends so long as you weren’t *selling* them (which is how it should be).

    -Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

  5. 0
    Kojiro says:

    Maroni: "It is as if the owner of this computer where I’m going to take the music from did a copy of a CD he bought and gave it to me, something that normally happens when we buy a CD and make copies for our friends."

    Except, that’s also illegal.

  6. 0
    Michael Chandra says:

    I think we have as rule that any copies may not be separated from the original owner-wise. You sell the original, you sell the copies to the same person or destroy them. It’s simple. You can have copies, let a friend borrow probably, but you just can’t only own a copy.

  7. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    I partially agree with you but looking at DVD,CD,cassette, ect piracy IE bootlegging the term loosely fits. The trouble is shearing,download,copying,backing up,ect while by the letter of the law infringes all the time.


    So perhaps the law is wrong and not the public. Its my opinion the only way to sort it out and make things equal and easily enforced and that is not focusing on distribution and copying but the flow of money derived from the movement of copyright. No money flow no harm done PERIOD.


    And again I will say to the uptight copyright nazis grow up and understand you can make up all the rules and laws in the world but it means jack if the people will not follow them, most of file shearing these days works on the illicit flow of money, you focus on that an the world is more likely to welcome it.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people!

  8. 0
    CyberSkull says:

    The only definition of piracy on the books is for crimes on the high seas. What these guys are talking about is infringement of copyright. Not the same thing as boarding a ship at sea with the intent to steal, rape and kill.

  9. 0
    axiomatic says:

    "Piracy" is a red herring crated by media companies unwilling to update their business model. Even more ironic is that these media companies are far more worried about suing little Johnny 13 year old downloading songs because he’s a super fan with no money of his own to spend than they are with REAL media pirates selling copies of music all day every day in foriegn country flea markets.

    These media company are focusing way too much on the lesser pirates and not enough on the greater pirates. But then again, little Johnny 13 year old is low hanging fruit with an mailing address to send subpoenas to and knows that Mom and Dad will pay out come court time, yet going after real pirates is like hard… and stuff.

    I have no sympothy for these media fat cats.

  10. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    I’ll flat out delete my colelction the day I see men in suits following people in stores with a calculator figuring out how much they owe for hearing the store’s music, likely by the second.

  11. 0
    Sporge says:

    Well hardly hurting the major artists anyway.  I actually agree that most of the time it isn’t the artist sueing, but the company they work with.

    Either way this is one thing I feel weird about.  I mean you can’t really regulate who listens to your music entirely.  The day I see someone sued over whistling a song they don’t own the rights to I think I might feel the need to commit seppuku

  12. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Ok, regarding music piracy, anyone whose watched MTV cribs should know it’s hardly hurting the artists, as they make most of their money off of concerts, merchadize and public appearances.

    The ones who speak out most against it are those who hold the publishing rights, IE the businessmen who keep signing bands that suck and suing 14 year olds and their families for, well, more money than they can ever pay off.

Leave a Reply