Napster case can go ahead.
p2pnet.net News:- The venal, dog-eat-dog world of the corporate music industry has been powerfully spotlighted in a court decision.
Napster investors such as BMG (Bertelsmann AG) and venture capital firm Hummer Winblad kept the song-swap site going, allegedly costing the music industry $17 billion in lost sales, reports Reuters here.
“In her ruling on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel, who issued an injunction against the original Napster in 2000, permitted the case to proceed through its discovery phase, saying the plaintiffs, including music publishers, songwriters and record labels, had the right to try to prove their allegations,” says the report.
Napster, the first of the p2p applications, was killed in 2002 and later disinterred by Roxio Inc which has been trying to revive it ever since. Despite major help from the Big Five record companies and non-stop media attention, Napster II shows no signs of being resuscitated.
“Universal Music Group and Capitol Records allege that Hummer and Bertelsmann did more than just financially back the service’s inventor, Shawn Fanning,” says a BBC story here.
“They claim the investors maintained hands-on control over the company and are liable for copyright infringement.”
Vivendi Universal’s Universal Music and EMI Group also sued Hummer Winblad, claiming the venture capital firm’s $15 million investment and installation of a chief executive at Napster in 2000 also promoted piracy, says Reuters.
An Associated Press story here quotes Bertelsmann lawyer Bruce Rich as saying the company wasn’t deterred by Patel’s ruling and would probably “ask again for a dismissal”.
BMG is one of the Big Five record labels whose RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is currently trying to sue US online file sharers into buying their ‘product’.
Its merger with Sony is currently the subject of protests in Europe.
July 15th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
God – ain’t it real? Maybe they’ll chew each other up ; )
July 16th, 2004 at 10:13 am
Investors are supposed to be protected from the misdeeds of companies in which they invest, that is part of the whole concept of the limited liability of a Corporation. If investors get it into their heads that they can be sued directly for investing in P2P companies then it will really make it very difficult indeed for future P2P companies to find investors. It is pretty amazing how such fundamental legal concepts seem to go out the window wherever copyright law is concerned.
Hopefully sanity will prevail and the judge will make the right decision here.
September 6th, 2004 at 8:05 pm
http://www.aaaventure.com is funding them via another name. I don’t know exactly, but I saw it from VC newsletter.