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."
Lemme verify my logic here...
1. Napster lets you share music while viewing banner ads. Napster gets sued for everything it has.
2. Napster VCs made money from banner ads. VCs get sued for everything they have.
3. I viewed banner ads that made money for VCs.
Holy crap, we're all next...
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.
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:[.]
At Napster's peak, the RIAA's sales were at their peak. There's no hard data that any amount of money was lost as a result of Napster.
So, in order to make the case work, they'll claim that they'd have made some imaginary number of money more (96 billion dollars?) because millions of people downloaded MP3s, therefore didn't buy albums as a result of it. So even though that money didn't materialize, they'll magically make money on it by claiming damages as a result of Napster.
That's pretty messed up. I worked for a company that made a product and sold a whopping $5,000 worth of it. (Gross, not net even.) A larger company came along and claimed we infringed on a patent. We didn't, but how do you convince a jury that? They used lawyer math to claim this company did one million dollars in damages. Uh right. Their revenue was consistent with both their predictions and on previous experience, and the company I worked for only made 5k.
Like I said, free money. I wish I had a suggestion as to how this whole system could be fixed to prevent this type of fraud.
"Derp de derp."
In an effort to fight rampant piracy, the RIAA announced that law enforcement officials will be arresting customers exiting music stores carrying product of any kind. "We've got to stem the flow of piracy at it's source" says Robbie Flack, the RIAA's cheif advisor to the Bush Administration. "These people are taking our intellectual property and playing it loud enough for other people to hear or showing it to their friends. Clearly this violates 'public performance' laws."
When asked whether this would discourage music sales, Flack responded that "those sheeple should just stay home and listen to appropriately licensed broadcasts of their favorite artists." RIAA officials stated that this is merely the first step in a long plan that they term the "War on Privac.... er Piracy" [ed note: this is how all RIAA staff pronounce it]. The next step according to the plan is to arrest executives from the very labels that the RIAA represents. "[the executives] are putting all of this copywritten material out there and giving consumers a sense that they own it. This is just wrong.", said Flack. The plan will culminate with the RIAA arresting themselves once Congress passes IMGOD-327, a controvercial new bill that would make RIAA staff federal law enforcement officers. The bill is expected become law in 2004 with very little resistance.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
...don't they understand?
The defining characteristic of a corporation, in America, is that its investors cannot be held liable for more than the amount of their investment.
In other words, suing the VCs for the actions of the company they invested in is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED. What's next? Someone finds a syringe in a Coke bottle, and lawyers sue every little old lady who owns shares in a mutual fund that invests in Coca-Cola stock?
What Would Jesus Do
(for a Klondike bar)?
... and the legal scholars I talked to found plenty for Hummer Winblad to worry about. Of course, this was before Bertelsmann became involved.
My article, from Upside.com:
Hummer Winblad could answer for Napster's sins
Legal experts say there is a good chance the flush venture capital firm Hummer Winblad stands to lose more than its $13 million investment in Napster Inc. if the music-swapping firm is fined for music piracy.
then the Economist did a story:
Hummer's Napster bummer: Napster's backers under attack
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.
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).
As part of the due-diligence, the major investors have publicly stated that they went to their lawyers, and the lawyers advised them to steer clear, because Napster was knowingly letting/encouraging people swap copyrighted material(this knowing/encouraging bit is important.)
They went ahead anyway, because they were greedy- the same reason people threw traditional rules-of-business out the window for countless dot-coms that(surprise) turned into dot-bombs.
Surprise surprise, people come knocking when they hear you funded a company which YOU KNEW(AND HAD BEEN ADVISED BY A LAWYER TO THE SAME EFFECT), WAS ENGAGING IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. It's called aiding and abetting, and in this case, the investors knew full well what was going on; it's not like someone was cooking the books and the investors honestly didn't know. EVERYONE at Napster knew they were doing something illegal.
If you want to be all "RIAA/MPAA sucks!", fine- but don't mix up centuries-old legitimate law. If you fund a business you know is a front for a drug operation, are you gonna be "speechless" when the DEA comes and arrests you? Actually, being speechless in such a case might be an excellent idea, particularly given your understanding of legal matters ;-)
Please help metamoderate.