Man Sues Bon Jovi, MLB, Others For $400 Billion Over Song He Claims Was Copied
from the idea-expression-dichotomy dept
We see stories all the time of people who write a story or a script and then when they see someone else has success with a similar idea, they assume that it was "stolen" and they're owed millions. Or, as the case may be, billions. A Red Sox fan named Samuel Bartley Steele, who apparently wrote a song called "(Man I Really) Love this Team," in 2004 got upset when he saw singer Bon Jovi release a song "I Love This Town" which was then used by Major League Baseball to promote the playoffs in 2007. He claims that he gave copies of the song to Red Sox execs, Red Sox players and MLB execs -- and thus Bon Jovi's song must have stolen from Steele's song. Of course, the two songs are apparently entirely different -- and even Steele's own musicologist testified that the songs were different. The district court tossed out the case, noting that no reasonable jury would find a similarity, but the guy has appealed and is asking for $400 billion, yes, with a b. If he won that much, perhaps he could donate some to the team to pick up a free agent outfielder or two this off-season, but I imagine that this case won't last very long.
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: baseball, bon jovi, copyright, red sox, samuel barley steele
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(or used to be, before they ran out of digits in the Debt screen thingy)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Debt
400 Billion is closer to the INTEREST we pay on the debt
400 Billion is about half of what the IRS pulls in on income taxes.
400 Billion is the TRADE Deficit of the US (Imports vs Exports)
Ok, just wanted to clarify, back to your on-topic discussion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surfthechannel vs Police
Published November 11, 2009
Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police and Another
Before Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Wilson and Lord Justice Leveson
Judgment November 5, 2009
The police could retain property they seized after the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute but a private prosecution was being contemplated or taking place.
The Court of Appeal so stated when allowing the appeal of the defendants, the Chief Constable of Northumbria and the Federation against Copyright Theft, from a decision on a preliminary issue made by Mrs Justice Sharp ([2009] 2 Cr App R 365) at the commencement of civil proceedings in which the claimants, Scopelight Ltd, its directors, Anton Benjamin Vickerman and Kelly-Ann Vickerman, owners of a website called SurfTheChannel.com, sought to recover property including computers, servers, memory sticks and mobile phones, seized by the police pursuant to a warrant in the investigation of contemplated criminal proceedings.
The judge ruled that, under section 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in the absence of continuing independent justification, the police were not entitled to retain property seized under that Act once a decision not to prosecute had been taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, so that a private body could consider whether to bring a prosecution, or while that private prosecution was being brought.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article6911108.ece
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Red Sox + Bon Jovi isn't worth quite that much... lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obviously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Musicologist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this guy have an attorney?
If he has an attorney, who in their right mind would think about asking for $400 billion in damages? Or did the attorney start drooling, thinking about his 50% cut of winning $200 billion? The bar association should disbar the attorney on those grounds alone!
But, again, the larger question is: who are these attorneys that are telling their clients to sue for billions in damages? Who are these attorneys that are telling clients that they even have a case like this?
Shouldn't a competent attorney realize the songs are different and not take the case? Or did the guy shop around until he finally found an attorney willing to take the case... for 50% of the $400 billion they thought they could win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Following this logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]