Jury Hits Michael Robertson With Estimated $41 Million Infringement Bill Over MP3Tunes

from the excessive? dept

Following last week’s decision by a jury that Michael Robertson could be held personally liable for songs that he “sideloaded” into his MP3Tunes music locker via the site’s Sideload.com feature, the jury has now issued a verdict so complicated that no one is quite sure how much Robertson is being ordered to pay, but it’s believed to be in the range of $41 million. The verdict seems questionable on a variety of levels, not the least of which is that MP3Tunes apparently had, and followed, a clear DMCA takedown policy (which an earlier court ruling had found to be sufficient). Where this case became more complicated was over the question of whether or not the company had “red flag knowledge” of infringement and whether Robertson himself was liable, in that he’d “sideloaded” certain songs that he’d found publicly available elsewhere online into his music locker. The details of the apparently very complex ruling will be important, but anyone who runs a cloud computing service might want to pay attention to this case, as it’s going to be a rather important one as it moves through the appeals process.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: capitol records, emi, mp3tunes

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Jury Hits Michael Robertson With Estimated $41 Million Infringement Bill Over MP3Tunes”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

He isn’t like most people. According to the article, “MP3.com was sold a year later to Vivendi Universal for about $372 million, with $120 million going to Robertson’s family trust”. So he likely has enough to pay it. Certainly he has more than enough to pay the court costs.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The problem is that makes him one of the very few able to pay the astronomical fines that always seem levied due to copyright infringement, but you can bet the trolls and maximalists will use this to threaten other people accused of infringement with equally insane fees, since this helps set precedent.

And of course it goes without saying that not a cent will likely find it’s way to the actual artists, the ones ‘harmed’ by his actions and supposedly the driving force behind these types of lawsuits, with the money instead going towards nice bonuses for the lawyers, execs, and what remains poured straight back into funding even more lawsuits.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Then you’re an idiot. MP3Tunes allowed you to store your MP3 collection online, where other people could listen.

The fact that Robertson has been held personally liable for his company’s actions, when other companies I could name with actual criminal offenses committed are not, speaks volumes about ‘justice’ in the US.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Sideloading is an aspect of deduplication, in order to reduce storage costs. If numerous links point to the same centrally-stored dataset, and some of those links are ‘unauthorised’, then does that make the single file in the deduplication process an unautorised file?

This is the logic that is being applied in the Robertson case. And, in my own not-so-humble estimation, that is wrong.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“If numerous links point to the same centrally-stored dataset, and some of those links are ‘unauthorised’, then does that make the single file in the deduplication process an unautorised file?”

This is one of the important questions, and one the industry supporters tend to side-step (either deliberately or because they don’t understand the issues everyone else is discussing).

That is – you can’t just “tell” whether a file is infringing or not since the exact same file can be both infringing and infringing depending on who uploaded it. The status can also change without changing the file itself (e.g. if someone has permission to copy the file, then that permission is revoked).

The basic flaw in all the argument used tends to be that they not only don’t consider these facts, but they also place the burden on to a 3rd party who cannot possibly know all of the details.

Anonymous Coward says:

[i]anyone who runs a cloud computing service might want to pay attention to this case[/i]

Only if you’re sideloading copyrighted material then freely distributing it. Don’t put legitimate service providers in the same platter as idiots who can’t cover their tracks then get sued. Cloud services are completely unaffected by this and will continue to be.

Provide explanations how legit cloud providers would ever be influenced by this decision. Otherwise it’s just dis-informed fear mongering.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yeah, no other file locker or similar cloud service has ever been affected by any of these types of ruling, and nobody’s ever tried using similar (but logically unrelated) cases to go against companies who are otherwise working legitimately. Certainly, no company’s ever been held liable for what the users of their service do, even if they follow the rules exactly and do nothing themselves to infringe copyright.


Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...