• zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean fuck Facebook and all, but this isn’t a good thing. Music is free, rich people are stupid.

    • mriormro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, so I guess we’ll just let the multi billion dollar corporation continue profiting off of others work without any sort of pushback right?

      You’re like this close to sounding like a dumb anarcho-capitalist.

  • meliodas_101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why is everyone focusing on the number. It’s going to set the record that artist’s can sue corporate for using their work unfairly.

    • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why is everyone focusing on the number.

      Because this is Lemmy. Any actual action that harms the corporations must be mocked and dismissed. Only empty posturing and Internet-tough-guy-ism is allowed.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean, Zuck personally made that much money every 6 minutes last year - when sleeping, eating, basking in the sun on a hot rock…

      But the real answer is that the article itself is not good reporting.

      Copyright claimants will typically request the statutory wilful infringement amount ($150,000 per work) in the court complaint, but will also have a catch-all for actual damages and profits. Proving that at trial can make this much higher. Some plaintiffs put a $10 million or $100 million or $1 billion number in their documents to make headlines. But this reporter presumably is not familiar with this practice, so is underselling the risk here.

  • rem26_art@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    2 months ago

    The article says that Meta claims they got the rights through some third party firm that, his publisher claims had no right to authorize the distribution of their music. If that turns out to be the case, I wonder how many of the other artists that you can choose when you want to make a Reel or whatever also would fall under this same circumstance?

  • MisterOwl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Wow, a WHOLE million? They’re sure to learn their lesson.

    /s, just in case.

    • defunct_punk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You dont just get to decide how much to sue for (well, you can try but good luck if there’s no base for your number)

  • Troy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 months ago

    The number is probably set just high enough to force meta to respond with lawyers who have an actual payroll. $1M is nothing, but if they roll over, then every other artist will do the same. Meta will need to fight this in courts. It will cost them money to do so.

    Eminem can make an album about it afterwards. And he doesn’t look super greedy. And other artists might win because of him.

  • ChocoboEnthusiast@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    I imagine this more about starting a precedent in the courts to sue Meta over IP. Eminem doesn’t need the money, but he needs meta to not steal what doesn’t belong to them.