Musician Demands Google, Major Labels Pay Him $325 Million For Removing Videos He Paid $30 To Upload To Vevo
from the it's-all-about-the-theoretical-Benjamins dept
Ronald Satish Emrit -- like my two preteen sons -- is convinced YouTube is going to make him rich. However, Emrit's sole contribution to this effort so far has been eight music videos… and a $325,000,000 lawsuit.
COMES NOW, the plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, who is bringing forth this cause of action against all seven defendants looking to assess joint and several liability. Presumably, the defendants would seek contribution and indemnity from each other through the filing of cross-claims. Accordingly, the plaintiff is suing all seven of the defendants for a remedy at law amounting to $325,000,000 (three hundred and twenty-five million dollars).Backstory:
Emrit signed up with Blue2Digital, paying it to upload his videos to the major label-backed Vevo channel. At some point recently, Emrit's videos were removed from Vevo. In response to the variety of injuries supposedly suffered by Emrit, a lawsuit has been filed against Google, Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, Blue2Digital, Vevo and (mysteriously) Warner Music Group. (Warner Music Group has no partnership agreement with Vevo.)
That $30 [$30 in today's dollars] is the root of Emrit's multiple complaints.
The plaintiff used a company called Blue2Digital (i.e. the fourth defendant) to have his music videos distributed onto the Vevo platform used by major record labels and their artists; the plaintiff paid approximately $30.00 to have his music videos distributed.Emrit (a.k.a., "Satish Dat Beast") is, among other things, an aspiring recording artist, a "frivolous and vexatious" litigant, a 2016 presidential hopeful and, for the purposes of this in forma pauperis lawsuit, an "indigent, disabled, and unemployed citizen."
Emrit is certain these defendants owe him a shit-ton of money. He definitely has lots and lots of "damages" for which he'd like to be recompensed. He calls the removal of the videos from Vevo's channel "negligence" because the defendants "had a duty of care and duty of loyalty to safeguard the plaintiffs intellectual property in the form of the eight music videos."
In addition, the removal of the videos pained Emrit greatly (and actionably):
The plaintiff claims that all seven of the defendants have committed the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) because it is and was extreme, outrageous, and egregious for them to remove eight commercially-released music videos copyrighted by the plaintiff.He also maintains that his eight videos -- swimming in a sea of millions -- were all he needed to become a highly-successful recording artist. Emrit was destined for greatness, but for the tortious interference performed by a mega-conspiracy of industry titans.
The plaintiff argues that all seven of the defendants committed the tortious interference with business relations/contracts by removing all eight of the plaintiffs commercially-released music videos which would thereby prevent the plaintiff from being able to secure a commercial recording contract from any of the major record labels in the form of a "360 deal" with a cross-collateralization clause, controlled composition clause, and Minimum Delivery and Release Commitment (MDRC).Emrit seems unaware that labels sign agreements with artists, not with content hosted on a third-party platform, uploaded by a third-party distribution company and monetized by a third-party YouTube channel.
His strongest cause of action is breach of contract:
The plaintiff asserts that all seven of the defendants committed a material breach of contract by accepting a payment from the plaintiff and subsequently removing his eight commercially-released music videos from the Vevo platform.The problem with this is actually several problems.
First, any breach of contract would be solely Blue2Digital's, which accepted his money in exchange for placement with Vevo. But the terms and conditions he agreed to plainly point out -- like so many do -- that these can and will change without notice.
You acknowledge that Blue2Digital may change the scope of its services from time to time and without notice to You. Blue2Digital shall be under no obligation to stream or otherwise use Your Content.Presumably Vevo's agreements with Blue2Digital contain similar wording.
On top of that, it appears the terms of service weren't breached by Blue2Digital. Instead, it looks as though something automated went haywire, resulting in Vevo booting all of Blue2Digital's uploads to that channel.
Thank You for being patient, as we know your videos have been down for the past few weeks. This was due to a glitch found in VEVO's system, which they believe was a botted program used by one of our clients. This lead to a long and tedious investigation, which policy was enforced and your videos being suspended until further notice.This was posted in August. This has replaced the original Blue2Digital Vevo FAQ, which can now only be accessed via archived pages. The new page notes that Blue2Digital will be working with UMG going forward. Paying customers can still get their videos uploaded to the Vevo channel, but they'll have to perform additional steps.
UMG will need from us clearance from all artist regarding their works and master sound recordings, including copyrights and licensing agreements (If Applicable) for any samples found in your works before any videos or albums can be restored.Emrit may not like the fact that his videos were removed from Vevo, but it doesn't appear to be the result of "contract-breaking" conduct by Blue2Digital. Instead, it appears to be the result of bad behavior of another Blue2Digital customer... or the sort of "content management" infighting that will only become more common as IP enforcement is handed over to automated taskmasters.
Failure to provide this information will automatically disqualify you from receiving our services. Please note that UMG has the right to refuse distribution for any song, video or any other content owned by you at it's own discretion.
From that point, Emrit's lawsuit gets even more ridiculous. He further claims the removal of videos by Vevo violated the DMCA, the Sonny Bono Act, the Audio Home Recording Act (which allowed the release of blank digital media) and the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (the birthplace of the DMCA Safe Harbors). He doesn't say how these actions violated these acts. He simply says that they do.
In addition[!] to the $325,000,000 in damages, Emrit also demands the following:
The plaintiff is also requesting the equitable remedy of an injunction or specific performance mandating that the plaintiff Ronald Emrit be offered a commercial recording contract by either UMG, Sony BMG, or WMG in the form of a "360 deal"...If he does nail down this last demand, let's hope no one feels obligated to hand him an advance. With $325 million in hand, Emrit should be able to pay for his own recording costs.
Emrit, serial litigant, seems to feel the federal judicial system is his own small claims court. He's out $30 here, but wants $325 million. In a 2014 case in which he sued Reverbnation over fees paid for banner ad placement, the judge pointed out that:
Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear civil actions where complete diversity exists between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.And earlier this year, another judge in another court had this to say about Emrit's losses vs. damages.
[...]
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he lost somewhere between $100 to $200 dollars in his dealings with Defendant. Despite the low amount of compensatory damages, Plaintiff requests $250,000 in punitive damages in order to meet the amount in controversy.
[...]
In this case, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages totaling 1250 times more than his claimed compensatory damages. Indeed, even if Plaintiff only claimed punitive damages of $75,000, the resulting ratio of 375 to one would still run afoul of the Due Process Clause.
It therefore appears, to a legal certainty, that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the amount in controversy threshold, and thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Because the Plaintiff’s claim of subject matter jurisdiction “lacks an arguable basis [] in law,” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, the Court should dismiss this case as frivolous…
Emrit alleges that he paid $160.00 to have seven music videos entered in the Independent Music Awards contest and that he “never heard back from” the defendants or their representatives after he submitted his videos. Emrit claims that the defendants never watched or judged his videos and he seeks monetary damages of $250,000 and an injunction mandating that the defendants accept an unlimited number of contest submissions from him free of charge.If Emrit's inability to show cause doesn't get this case tossed, his damage multiplier of 10,833,333 certainly will.
[...]
His claim that his damages exceed the amount in controversy requirement are not supported by any legally cognizable calculation of damages.
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, lawsuits, ronald satish emrit, videos
Companies: blue2digital, google, sony bmg, umg, universal music, vevo, warner music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Entitlement or greed
1. For whatever reason, he believes that the world owes him riches and fame, and is using the legal system to try and 'correct' the mistake that somehow kept 'his' money out of his hands.
or...
2. The reason behind his insanely high 'damages' is the same as similar demands in other lawsuits, a threat designed to make settling look better. Pay him a couple grand to go away, or take it to court and pay even more just fighting the matter. And who knows, if he manages to find a judge that's taken a blow to the head recently, he might even win a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Entitlement or greed
Idiots like David Lowery have bred another slew of idiots who believe that all their ills can be thrown at Google. Don't remove videos? Get sued. Remove videos? Get sued. Didn't help an idiot get more money for no reason? Get sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Entitlement or greed
He is definitely not quite sane, buy he's not that different from multi-billion companies either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Entitlement or greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Entitlement or greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He should change his name from Emrit to Idjit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this case, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages totaling 1250 times more than his claimed compensatory damages. Indeed, even if Plaintiff only claimed punitive damages of $75,000, the resulting ratio of 375 to one would still run afoul of the Due Process Clause. "
If only more judges would apply the due process clause to the equally outrageous $750-150,000 statutory damages demands by copyright trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Due Process Clause
Somebody needs to tell the MAFIAA that their $150,000 to 99¢ ratio is WAYYY off then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only plausible damage to claim is brain damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point of order, sir!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA should hire him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
einsteinrockstar ?
I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This nutty case might have been worth a blurb, but not a wall of text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This nutty case might have been worth a blurb, but not a wall of text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This nutty case might have been worth a blurb, but not a wall of text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This nutty case might have been worth a blurb, but not a wall of text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This nutty case might have been worth a blurb, but not a wall of text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand... I kinda hope he wins.
No, no, bear with me here. It would be really awesome to see a precedent set in which the use of an automated system to take down legitimate content became an actionable tort punishable by some really serious damages. That is exactly the ruling that we've been needing for several years now, ever since ContentID came out if not longer.
...which is probably why it'll never happen. But hey, we can still dream, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. You can't take money from someone and then change your terms after the fact. Once they took his money they did have an obligation to him. Not a $325,000,000 obligation, though. The lawsuit is still ridiculous.
Interestingly, if the company had insisted on an actual DMCA notice, instead of relying on broken automated takedowns, they'd be immune from liability. Not that they have a ton to worry about here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dunno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who?
Never heard of him/her/it. Seriously. This has to be their shot at fame. Couldn't do it with music, so the next best thing was to Streisand themselves with legal buffoonery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who?
Thanks in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bend over you nasty corporate dickheads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bend over you nasty corporate dickheads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“The only plausible damage to claim is brain damage
Though to be honest, defendants would have an excellent case pleading that his brain is in pristine state and completely unused.