Bertelsmann Agrees To Pay One More Time To Finally Settle All Of Napster's Mistargeted Lawsuits
from the bad-precedents dept
It never made sense that the various record labels and music publishers sued record label Bertelsmann for the Napster affair. Yes, it's true that Bertelsmann was the only major record label to view Napster as an opportunity rather than a threat. And it's true that Bertelsmann invested quite a bit of money into Napster. But, the other record labels' misguided complaint was with Napster -- not with Bertelsmann. The problem was that after winning the original Napster lawsuit, the other record labels realized that Napster had no money. So they sued Bertelsmann instead, for being the only record label with forward-thinking management to invest in Napster. However, it makes no sense to put any kind of liability on investors in a company. Otherwise, it would make life quite difficult for any investor today -- who could then be sued for the actions of the company he or she invested in. It would greatly increase the liability for retail investors as well as institutional investors. It's for that reason that it would have been nice to see Bertelsmann fight this case and win it.Unfortunately, before the case had a chance to get anywhere, Universal Music (who was the first to sue Bertelsmann) bought Bertelsmann. Then, rather than sue itself, the company quickly settled that portion of the lawsuit and proceeded to settle the other portions as well, with the final part of the case finally settling late last week. Bertelsmann eventually had to pay out approximately $300 million in all of these "settlements," which is a real shame since all the company did was invest in a service that its executives (who were soon fired) realized could have revolutionized the music business. While these are all settlements, meaning that there's no court precedent, this could still encourage companies to sue investors in companies rather than the companies themselves. Venture capitalists and private equity firms might want to take note.
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
Filed Under: copyright, investors, liability
Companies: bertelsmann, napster, universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Settled?
I am just confused. I said I was "unknowledgable".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Settled means no judge,
If you can't beat the competition, buy it and put it out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enron?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do you ever even run these thoughts by anyone with a little bit of legal knowledge.. or are you guys like the 1000 monkeys pounding on a keyboard trying to create something...
you have different levels of investors (active/passive/etc...) depending on the level of involvement. i'm pretty sure that bertelsmann's mgmt was more of a very active investor, meaning they played a role in the direction of the operation (even though the operation was pretty washed up...)
furthermore, the mgmt would have been sophisticated enough to do their own due diligence, to understand the risks of what napster was doing at that time...
these and other issues were what led to bertelsmann being a target to be sued...
lawd boy... get some help next time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sam, it's so nice that you stop by and insult us, when you almost always misread what we write or get the basic facts wrong. It's nice of you to imply we don't know what we're talking about when the facts tend to back us up -- and you never seem able to grasp the facts.
. i'm pretty sure that bertelsmann's mgmt was more of a very active investor, meaning they played a role in the direction of the operation
Venture capitalists are usually pretty active investors themselves -- but again, the legal liability lies with those who are actually the officers of the company. Suing the investors is a very dangerous strategy that opens up all sorts of problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also don't see why it matter if they are active or passive investors. I agree with mike. Legal dealings like these will make investors think twice before investing in something new.
It also doesn't seem like you know anymore than Mike about the issue anyway. "I'm pretty sure Bartelsmann mgmy was more of a very active investor?" Are you pretty sure or very sure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]