EMI Adds Insult To Bankruptcy In Misguided Gloating Over MP3Tunes Demise
from the time-poorly-spent dept
We already wrote about EMI's success in bankrupting MP3Tunes via overly aggressive litigation. But, now the company has decided to add insult to bankruptcy with a bizarrely gloating statement provided to News.com's Greg Sandoval.Since November 2007, EMI Music and EMI Music Publishing have been engaged in a lawsuit with MP3tunes and its principal, Michael Robertson, in connection with Mr. Robertson's facilitation of widespread copyright infringement on MP3tunes.com and Sideload.com. These sites have built their businesses on the unauthorized distribution of music, at the expense of EMI's songwriters and artists.Here, they're simply lying. The court ruling in the MP3Tunes case stated explicitly: "MP3tunes did not promote infringement." To claim otherwise is to ignore what the court stated flat out.
Now on the eve of trial, and after an ongoing press campaign claiming that MP3tunes would fight to vindicate its 'right' to infringe, Mr. Robertson has filed for bankruptcy protection for MP3tunes in the Southern District of California. After four and a half years of Robertson's bluster and rhetoric, it is apparent to EMI that Robertson has finally realized that his case has no merit.This makes no sense, and is even self-contradictory. As they state above -- and which everyone here knows -- filing for bankruptcy does not get you out of a copyright damages award. Thus, there is no reason whatsoever for the company to file for bankruptcy "to escape liability." That's impossible. The only reason to file for bankruptcy is because the company is out of money from fighting the damn lawsuit. And it's bizarre for EMI to claim that Robertson realized his case has no merit, considering that he mostly won the original lawsuit. Yes, there were a few key points that he lost on, which may turn out to be expensive if he loses on appeal and depending on the damages calculation, but the key elements of the case were won by Robertson and MP3Tunes.
While Robertson may believe that MP3tunes will be able to escape liability in the upcoming trial through this bankruptcy, Robertson himself is still a named defendant in the case and the Court has already determined that both he and MP3tunes have infringed EMI's copyrights. As such, he is facing personal liability both for infringements that the Court has already determined have occurred and for the further alleged infringements that will be addressed at trial. Accordingly, EMI will continue to pursue its case against Robertson, to ensure that its songwriters and artists are properly compensated for their creative work.
It seems here that EMI is simply insulting Robertson out of spite. In the meantime, Robertson has pointed out that EMI spent $10 million suing him -- or more than the entire cost to build and run MP3Tunes. Remember that some exploration into how much EMI makes from Katy Perry's hugely successful album showed that the label probably ended up with about $8 million? Yeah, so basically it spent more suing Michael Robertson than it got from Katy Perry. Perhaps that money could have been better spent. No wonder the company was taken over by a bank and then sold off in pieces. Its priorities are a complete mess.
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: bankruptcy, competition, innovation, michael robertson
Companies: emi, mp3tunes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
EMI suing itself into bankruptcy
I can't keep track of who's been bought & who's gone bust. But in the end, it won't be "piracy" that ends the reign of Big Music, rather it will be their own courtroom-centric business strategy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They're essentially using a club to hammer in a tac.
It's just a desperate cycle too as they'll spend more and more money to try to get money back from the pirates, and int he end they'll burn themselves out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: EMI suing itself into bankruptcy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
....Then they fight us....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Defender
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You said : The court ruling in the MP3Tunes case stated explicitly: "MP3tunes did not promote infringement." To claim otherwise is to ignore what the court stated flat out.
which is it, or is this just more word parsing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We encourage our fellow major labels (most particularly Universal Music Group) to continue to follow in our wake until they too litigate themselves broke and are all gobbled up in turn, until there is but one (there can be only one) which will most likely be Sony.
Given that corporations are people, it is our unwavering hope that Sony will then be able to get themselves declared an endangered species to forestall any anti-trust or monopoly lawsuits that might be possible.
Yours truly, the soon to be extinct EMI.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greater Enforcement vs. Adapting and Innovating?
Trolls? Shills? Got anything to say about this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
So the taxpayers end up financing every small business that finds itself in an intellectual property lawsuit? There's the stupidest idea of the year and it's only May.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Court Cost Balancer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Defender
I've read here and there that guys planning to make start ups and other services are thinking about moving out of the US and venture capitalists are skeptical about where they put their money in fear of future litigation due to copyright and patent issues in a nearby future.
Good for the guys outside of the US who may see their tech industries grow strong, but ultimately bad for the US economy that loses both new business and work posts in one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: EMI suing itself into bankruptcy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, we're already pretty much funding businesses as it is. You can look up how much some of those big corporations (who outsource pretty much everything) receive after getting tax breaks and it's ridiculous. Some of those companies make literally hundreds of millions of dollars off the tax payers.
So if it's okay to receive tax breaks for shipping jobs and production outside the U.S. while writing it all off, why not finance a legal fund that allows for small businesses to receive some aid in intellectual property lawsuits? We already have funds set aside for small businesses to apply for and receive funding to provide training for their employees.
You want stupidest idea of the year? Pretty much anything you say, you're a real Negative Nancy. I'm sure you're one of the same people talked about in the article the other day about tearing down artists who try new things. If EMI can't take a cut of an artists' funds or beat down the company which did not commit copyright infringement then there's something wrong with the world, am I right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or cast the dice and hope no one notices you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not really.
There are a number of things you can do to reduce your risk, but the risk will always be there. First, incorporate as a real corporation (not an LLC or subchapter S) to gain the "corporate veil" (and make sure that you are very uptight about keeping the company's finances and your personal finances entirely different things. You get a salary.) This will make it more difficult for them to personally bankrupt you if they decide to ruin your business.
You should also consult with a business attorney specializing in these issues. There are procedural and recordkeeping things you can do that won't provide a complete defense, but will make you a less attractive target.
If your risk is very great, and you expect a good profit, then you can also purchase insurance against such things. It is expensive, though, and typically not worth the cost.
Personally, I've been comfortable with just doing the incorporation for my software business. I've never had a lick of trouble, but if I did, it provides a bit of a firewall so at worst I'd lose the company and not my house, car, etc. And you can always start another company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my opinion, it's NOT okay to provide tax credits to ship jobs overseas. Yet the tech companies seem to be doing just that. Are any consumer electronics manufactured in the US? Between that and abusing the visa system to import engineers from India and other third world nations to avoid paying the salary commanded by an American is a scandal. No company in any industry should be incentivized to export jobs or import cheap, foreign labor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Cost Balancer
So this is the part where you ignore free speech rights? Got it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Cost Balancer
The problem, as is, is impossible to fix. What we really need to do is educate the judges, the patent office, the lawmakers, and fix the damn laws. That would solve this problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Cost Balancer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: EMI suing itself into bankruptcy
So you're arguing the record labels are noble heroes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: EMI suing itself into bankruptcy
What they should do. Well, I quote Sir Paul Mccartney:
"You used to say
live and let live.
But if this everchanging world in which we live in
makes you give up and cry;
say live and let die."
(Paul Mccartney and the Wings, Live and Let Die, Live and Let Die, 1973)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Cost Balancer
Um.. this isn't about how much money someone (or company) can contribute to a political campaign. It's about how much they can spend to abuse the judicial process.. Really, get a f***ing clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Thus, they may have technically infringed (via a user submission or bookkeeping error) but not be liable under safe harbor provisions or some other defense.
Kind of like how someone who kills in self-defense would neither promote murder nor be found guilty for it, despite the very real fact that they killed someone.
The world is very rarely dichotomous, no matter how hard so many people try to force it to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aint propaganda, grand
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: EMI suing itself into bankruptcy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Cost Balancer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Cost Balancer
In the landmark 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the court said that “virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money,” so restricting campaign spending meant restricting political speech. The First Amendment required that political speech be unfettered, so the same was required for political spending.
Got it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
BTW, you are out of your mind. Why don't you just sway what you mean. You think the side you agree with ought to pay and have limited legal rights. Isn't that closer to the truth? Because what you actually said was utter nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Cost Balancer
But you are right. You absolutely should be able to pursue with maximum vigor the privileges granted to you by law, and it is rather difficult to prevent that without stepping on other fundamental rights. Therefore, the more palatable solution, per the Equal Protection clause, is to take away the privileges you are abusing, through a) copyright reform and b) taxing all that idle money the Devil has made work for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Defender
http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/06/blueseed-startup-ship/#s:blueseed-typea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get rid of IP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get rid of IP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Greater Enforcement vs. Adapting and Innovating?
You're mad! The solution is to burn them all to the ground and enhance technology further.
>>all that time and money would be better spent creating new markets, new technologies, and leveraging the ones already in place, to expand the pool of customers and increase revenues
For companies like EMI? You're mad!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get rid of IP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, it IS a tragedy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because said idea is bullshit
[ link to this | view in thread ]