NOW NAPSTER INVESTORS ARE IN TROUBLE


The BBC reports that an action against the original backers of the Napster P2P file-sharing software is going ahead. Although a new copyright-friendly version of Napster has been launched, this action concerns funding of the original site, which shut down in summer 2001 after a series of unfavourable rulings. Yesterday Judge Marilyn Hall Patel decided to allow the action, brought by Universal Music Group and Capitol Records against Hummer Wimbald and Bertelsmann . She pointed out that “courts have long recognised that in certain circumstances, vicarious or contributory liability will be imposed". The claimants argue that the defendants didn’t just stump up the cash; they also maintained hands-on control over the company, making them liable for copyright infringement too. Bertelsmann’s lawyer though has said that the company will continue pushing to have the case dismissed.

The IPKat thinks it’s fair enough for investors to be held liable, but only if they really do know that their money is being used for nefarious purposes and/or they encourage naughtiness on the part of those in whom they invest.

More unlikely patrons here and here
How to avoid bad investments here and here
NOW NAPSTER INVESTORS ARE IN TROUBLE NOW NAPSTER INVESTORS ARE IN TROUBLE Reviewed by Unknown on Thursday, July 15, 2004 Rating: 5

1 comment:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.