Slashdot Mirror
Record Labels Sue Napster's VC
zemkai writes "From the "wtf?!?" department... Universal Music Group and EMI are suing Hummer Winblad Ventures for contributing to copyright infringement due to that firm's investment in Napster... I'd like to put something witty here, but I'm just speechless."
Well, it's not as simple as that... From the article: "In May 2000, Hummer Winblad invested about $13 million in Napster and took control of its business and legal liabilities , with Barry assuming an interim CEO role." I hate the record industry for all this shit, but they probably do have a pretty good case.
Napster is a tool that CAN violate copyrights. The program doesn't inherently do any of this though.
Unless of course you consider your car a tool for running people over, since that's but one of many options available to you...
Napster was a tool for violating copyrights.
In the same way FTP clients are a tool for violating copyrights.
So a CEO isn't liable for things that their company does, but investors can be held liable for actions of the users of their "investee's" products?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
...they'll be suing the individual investors of tobacco companies for wrongful death due to an individuals cancer.
Asininity at its finest. But hey, the more they keep digging, the deeper they get.
Modern capitalism is based very strongly on the concept of limited liability which means precisely that investors are not responsible for liabilities incurred by the companies they invest in. The companies are, and the investors can lose their investment, but they are not criminally liable for the company's actions (unless they participate directly in those actions) and they are liable only for the amount of their investment.
It's like investing in a local street gang.
No, it's like investing in Exxon before the Exxon Valdez or in Union Carbide before Bhopal. You can lose your investment. To suggest that it go any further undermines every principle upon which our economy is founded.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Holy crap, we're all next...
haven't they already started prosecuting college students ?
If we want to make corporate responsibility a real thing in the post-Enron days, this sort of thing is going to have to happen. Lots of people want laws to enable us to go after people who lie to shareholders or pollute the environment, but the sword cuts both ways. If you want to make it more difficult for someone (either a real person or another corporation) to hide behind a corporation after engaging in illegal activity, you're going to have to accept that these laws will be used by people we don't like (RIAA) to go after people we do like (Napster) breaking laws we don't like.
How is this such a wrong thing anyway? Hummer Winblad knew that Napster operated by exploiting copyrights they did not own, but they gave them money anyway. Giving money to a terrorist group that will commit crimes is illegal; why shouldn't it be illegal to give money to a company that will commit crimes also? Ignore whether the law is just; as it stands right now, Napster was illegal.
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
Sue the CDROM manufacturers that enabled music reading/playing for computers. Seriously. They could argue that the CDROM manufacturers should have only created them to read data CDs.
Maybe sound card manufacturers for having good quality line-in/mic jacks - they should have limited them to 22khz or something suitable for voice.
It probably won't go as far as suing the retailers for selling CDs to "pirates", however.
Look at what record companies are producing now: $17 or $18 CDs of bands that wouldn't have been allowed out of the garage in the 80s. Who is the best guitarist in alternative music? Who knows? Who cares? Alternative music doesn't require technical virtuosity to play. It's all about small acts. The record companies like this because it doesn't lock them in to paying prima donnas like Eddie Van Halen or David Lee Roth the big bucks, but it also means that alternative bands are far more interchangeable and can't demand as much of a premium over other bands.
Eventually, a record company will realize that it would be better off releasing a higher quality product at a lower price, its sales will go through the roof, and everyone else will follow. Until then, we will just have to listen to them whine about file sharing. File sharing is not the problem, price and quality are.
The people who really have something to lose are radio stations. They are a free music delivery mechanism, but why listen to a radio station that only plays music you like some of the time when you can download MP3s and listen to your favorites.
Perhaps the future weakness of the radio station is what really bothers the record companies. Radio stations are their promotion mechanism. Without them, they might have to actually produce a quality product to get people to buy it (instead of just playing it to the point that people feel vaguely uncomfortable when the radio is off because they are so accustomed to the sound of the song).
That's the key. The key to holding the VCs responsible is proving that they were aware that the activities Napster was promoting were illegal. Personally I'd argue that you'd have to be a complete fucking idiot not to have realized that, but I am not a lawyer.
That's not to say I particularly like the music companies, but I think they have a very good chance of winning this one (Again, my non-lawyerly opinion.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I have one such suggestion: fix it so that you can't claim a loss of any kind unless you also made the same loss claim to the IRS.
That'll force these morons to sue only when incurring real losses, not on the basis of this fantasyland crap.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Let me first acknowledge that the person you're replying to is probably a little more extreme than a lot of people. BUT...
Even though I disagree with the way he expresses his opinion (telling you to get a job was rather childish) he is correct. The conglomerates themselves have invalidated the entire concept of copyright by acting outside the boundaries (and spirit) of the original intent of copyright. To ensure innovators innovated, and to insure that useful ideas weren't kept out of the public's hands forever... One of many measures essentially enacted to prevent the formation of an ultra-wealthy aristocracy.
They didn't intend to allow conglomerates to keep culturally enriching materials out of the public domain forever, yet that is essentially where we're at, and essentially the point of view you're arguing.
I can't wait for somebody to become a big star by financing his own recordings, promoting himself with unencumbered p2p delivered mp3 (or oggs or whatever) of songs, perhaps embedding his web-site name in one of the ID3 fields so people who really liked it could logon and buy cds, t-shirts, and tickets to see him in concert.
It will eventually happen, and if your music is good enough, it could be you. The critical difference is that somebody who becomes huge this way gets to keep all the profits, keep ownership (for a time) of the rights to his songs, and not be a slave to some idiot in a suit's concerns about your record and whether there are any "singles" on it. Every artist who sides with the RIAA and their ilk only lengthen their time of servitude under an oppressive regime.
Hello Apples, meet Oranges. A house is physical property. It can be taken away. A song can't be taken away unless I take all your tapes and erase your memory of it. The law plainly intends for copyrights to eventually expire, why can't you (and the RIAA) accept that rather than trying to sue everybody into submission?
Using your logic, how is playing the radio loud any different than Napster? I'm allowing many people to "enjoy" "your" music but only paying for one copy. For that matter, why is Napster different than a radio station? Sure, radio stations pay for the right to broadcast music, but the per song breakdown is pretty small. The reason the labels had this arrangement in the first place was PROMOTIONS.
Why won't the labels license Napster-like services to provide unlimited downloads? It would be the same as radio--better really because the user would hear exactly as much of what they are interested in as they want--lose interest fast? Decide the artist sucks? Erase file.
Every "starving musician" I've ever met who is vehemently anti-Napster invariably has some pie-in-the-sky dream of living the life of a rock star--fame, fortune, big money, and chicks everwhere. All of them desperately want to believe that those three things are achieved on merit, but they aren't. They're based on promotional budget, production budget, and access to good drugs.
Who did what now?
This whole plan of sueing VCs is a perfectly logical step for the music industry. Lets see... Napster provided illegal music file sharing services and was funded by company X. If they win, then the generic case if illegal music file sharing service has company X for funding then they can be sued will be viable. And hencely, then the VCs can be sued for their investment in Kazaa, and Kazaa will crumble and die, because VCs will be pulling out right and left. Its so obvious even I can see it.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF