Bertelsmann Settles One Part Of Napster Suit; Sets Bad Precedent

from the not-good-for-VCs dept

While the fact that Bertelsmann has agreed to pay out $50,000 to a small record label to settle charges that it contributed to copyright infringement by funding the original Napster may not seem like a big deal, investors everywhere should take note. This is just a small part of a series of lawsuits from record labels, including Universal and EMI. However, the problem is that it's blaming the investors for the "crimes" of the company. The argument is that Napster could never have done what it did if it didn't have that investment money from Bertelsmann. While the settlement doesn't involve anyone recognizing any guilt on any side, it does set a bad precedent. Any time a company is caught doing something illegal, what's to stop those impacted from suing the investors instead of the company itself? Imagine the citizens of California, who were defrauded by Enron creating a class action suit, not against Enron and its executives, but all investors in Enron (in which case, you'd have to imagine that some people would be on both sides of the lawsuit). This should be especially worrisome for bigger investors, such as venture capitalists. If any company they fund does something illegal, even if they have no control over day-to-day operations, should the investors get sued? It opens up a very dangerous slippery slope that could scare off many investors -- especially in early stage or emerging markets where the legal issues may not be initially clear.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2005 @ 12:10pm

    No Subject Given

    Except that *settlements* do not create *precedent* -- at least not in the legal sense. The requirements for veil piercing are fairly stringent, and you're certainly not going to have any veil piercing in a widely held public company.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Mike (profile), 21 Jan 2005 @ 1:38pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    It's not the legal precedent I'm worried about, but the idea that companies *will* settle these suits... meaning more will try to sue.

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.