Bertelsmann seeks to block Napster suits, 17 billion

[Jo]

AG, who in 2000 entered into a strategic partnership with peer-to-peer software Napster, has asked a New York court to dismiss three copyright infringement lawsuits:

Bertelsmann filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against claims by EMI Group, Universal Music Group Recordings, and another unnamed group, who have charged the German media giant and its U.S. operations with "vicarious and contributory" copyright infringement through their involvement in Napster, Bertelsmann said Thursday in a statement.

The music companies have alleged that if it weren't for Bertelsmann's funding of Napster, the P-to-P service would have been shuttered in 2000 instead of in 2001, when it was ordered to shut down by a California federal court. The music companies, which filed their lawsuit in February, are seeking damages of $ 17 billion.

No court has ever held that by providing money to an accused infringer, a funder is exposed to copyright infringement liability, Bertelsmann said in its motion to dismiss the lawsuits. Such a "groundless and discredited" theory, the company argued, would upset capital markets by potentially expanding the reach of copyright laws to actors far removed from the actual infringers.


The plaintiffs have four weeks to respond to the Bertelsmann motion, after which the German media group has a further four weeks to respond, according to a Bertelsmann spokesman.

[overloaded_ide]

Ain't this a bunch of crap.

I suppose next time you want a home equity loan you will have to show in detail what you will do with every penny of the loan if a suit like this goes though. Other wise if you bought a gun and bullets with the loan, the bank could be sued when you shoot someone!

This just shows how poor our legal system is getting when anyone can be sued for loaning money for any reason to anyone! If the court did not shut down Napster before the loan was made then they had every right to loan an existing business money! It was the courts responsibility to determine if Napster was illegal and should be shut down, not anyone loaning money!

In otherwords they are saying since they could not win in court durring that time they were going for a simple forced into bankrupcy closure instead, not a legal verdict, and the loan prevented that bankruptcy!
And that is the basis of this suit it looks like.

[gmatov]

IDE,

Looks more to me like the "dingos" ( from Quigley Down Under ) are starting to eat each other.

At the time of the original Napster suits, the concensus was one of the media giants would buy it rather than close it down, and use it as a cash cow.

Bertlesmann won, and now the other biggies are pissed that they're somehow making money.

How does another of the biggies buy a distributed thing like KaZaa, to get in on the feast? With Napster, they bought a location and centralised servers that did the redirection.

Besides, if they do buy KaZaa, the other "left-outs" will have 2 targets to sue. This really breaks my heart. NOT!

I don't use this stuff, myself, as I'm not into music, but anyone who does has MY blessing, if it matters.

[overloaded_ide]

I wonder if Bertlesmann produces any of my favorite stuff? I don't buy music any more unless like yard sales used cd's or close out sales for like a buck.

But hey if I can fuel the fire against the Iraa and the other companies, maybe I'll buy a bertlesman cd

[poopyhead]

let them sue each other to oblivion....

"lesser of 2 evils" anyone????