all 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 110 points 1 year ago (4 children)

My dude, you aren't suing a small blogger, but an evil corporation worth over $1.5 trillion. Aim higher!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 105 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't think he needs the money. This seems more like a cut that shit out and start the ball rolling for everyone else to sue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    He doesn't, but evil corporations only respond to one thing: money.

    The more you can take from them, the more it hurts them. They already do it to us, including ripping off his songs, so fight back if you have the money to spend on lawyers!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Yes, a lawsuit, a fine, etc are all "cost of doing business." If it costs a million dollars a year to use eminem's music, but engages 150 million of their 2 billion users into engagement and ad revenue that nets 50 million dollars, it was a very lucrative payment to eminem, and now they will certainly be willing to do the same for other popular artists at that price point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 82 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (1 child)

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

    /s, just in case.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Hey, you wanna license the Beatles? I'm your guy

    $3.50 a pop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    [–] 27 points 1 year ago*

    Exceed $1 Million

    That is effectively pocket change to both parties. This isn't about money, but the legal precedent.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Meta: "Ooooooh! A whole million dollars!"

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    Hell yeah, get their asses Slim!

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think that's how much Zuckerberg tips the person who washes his testicles for him.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    A million.

    Cost of doing business for them. They won't even blink.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Is that Eminem Che Guevara?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Did he forget how to spell billions?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago
    [–] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    He looks fucking weird, is it the plastic surgery?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent