Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’

Photo: picture alliance.
An old-time record player playing a 78 rpm record. This is shellac — ie, before vinyl.

Maybe it’s because I still feel guilty about how my brother and I made a game of smashing our grandfather’s shellac records when we were children, but I can’t help taking sides in the court battle described below. Now that I’m a grownup, I believe that we should protect these oldies, and let the public get at them.

Ashley Belanger reports at Ars Technica that the Internet Archive’s battle with music publishers has ended in a settlement that will, in my view, be to the public’s benefit.

“A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit where music publishers sued the Internet Archive over the Great 78 Project, an effort to preserve early music recordings that only exist on brittle shellac records.

“No details of the settlement have so far been released, but a court filing on Monday confirmed that the Internet Archive and UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Sony Music Entertainment, and other record labels ‘have settled this matter.’ …

“Days before the settlement was announced, record labels had indicated that everyone but the Internet Archive and its founder, Brewster Kahle, had agreed to sign a joint settlement, seemingly including the Great 78 Project’s recording engineer George Blood, who was also a target of the litigation. But in the days since, IA has gotten on board, posting a blog confirming that ‘the parties have reached a confidential resolution of all claims.’ …

“For IA — which strove to digitize 3 million recordings to help historians document recording history — the lawsuit from music publishers could have meant financial ruin. Initially, record labels alleged that damages amounted to $400 million, claiming they lost streams when IA visitors played Great 78 recordings.

“But despite IA arguing that there were comparably low downloads and streams on the Great 78 recordings — as well as a music publishing industry vet suggesting that damages were likely no more than $41,000 — the labels intensified their attacks in March. In a court filing, the labels added so many more infringing works that the estimated damages increased to $700 million. It seemed like labels were intent on doubling down on a fight that, at least one sound historian suggested, the labels might one day regret.

“Notably, the settlement comes after IA previously lost a court fight with book publishers last year, where IA could have faced substantial damages. In that fight, IA accused book publishers of being unable to prove that IA’s emergency library had hurt their sales. But book publishers, represented by the same legal team as music labels, ultimately won that fight and negotiated a judgment that similarly included an undisclosed payment.

“With both legal battles likely ending in undisclosed payments, it seems likely we’ll never know the true cost to the digital library of defending its digitization projects.

“In a court filing ahead of the settlement in the music label fight, IA had argued that labels had added an avalanche of infringing works so late into the lawsuit to create leverage to force a settlement.

“David Seubert, who relied on the Great 78 Project and manages sound collections at the University of California, Santa Barbara library, previously told Ars that he suspected that the labels’ lawsuit was ‘somehow vindictive,’ because the labels’ revenue didn’t seem to be impacted by the Great 78 Project. He suggested that perhaps labels just ‘don’t like the Internet Archive’s way of pushing the envelope on copyright and fair use.

” ‘There are people who, like the founder of the Internet Archive, want to push that envelope, and the media conglomerates want to push back in the other direction.’ “

More at ArsTechnica, here. Of related interest, at My Dad’s Records, here, my nephew once preserved the old R&B vinyl 78s of the same naughty brother who was guilty with me, but my nephew let the tumblr site go years ago. Check it out anyway.

Read Full Post »

Photo: Trilogy Captain’s Log.
“Lahaina Strong Paddle Out” expresses the determination of young Hawaiian climate activists after the fires in Maui.

I am so relieved to see young people taking charge of some of the issues that have messed up our planet. They focus on goals and don’t get distracted by the usual specious arguments for not upsetting the apple cart or for taking more time. Good things do happen when you don’t realize your goal is “impossible.”

Consider these young people in Hawaii.

Dharna Noor and Lois Beckett write at the Guardian, “Hawaii officials have announced a ‘groundbreaking’ legal settlement with a group of young climate activists, which they said will force the state’s department of transportation to move more aggressively towards a zero-emission transportation system.

“ ‘You have a constitutional right to fight for life-sustaining climate policy and you have mobilized our people in this case,’ Josh Green, the Hawaii governor, told the 13 young plaintiffs in the case, saying he hoped the settlement would inspire similar action across the country.

“Under what legal experts called a ‘historic’ settlement, announced [in June], Hawaii officials will release a roadmap ‘to fully decarbonize the state’s transportation systems, taking all actions necessary to achieve zero emissions no later than 2045 for ground transportation, sea and inter-island air transportation,’ Andrea Rodgers, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case, said at a press conference with the governor.

“ ‘This is an extraordinary, unprecedented victory for the youth plaintiffs,’ Michael Gerrard, the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told the Guardian.

“While Hawaii has long embraced a progressive climate change agenda, with 2045 as a target year for decarbonization, the new settlement is ‘as big a deal as everyone said it is,’ said Denise Antolini, an emeritus professor of law at the University of Hawaii Law School, who has followed climate change litigation for decades. …

“The June 2022 lawsuit, Navahine F v Hawaii Department of Transportation, was filed by 13 young people who claimed the state’s pro-fossil fuel transportation policies violate their state constitutional rights. By prioritizing projects like highway expansion instead of efforts to electrify transit and promote walking and biking, the complaint says, the state created ‘untenable levels of greenhouse gas emissions.’ As a result, state officials harmed the plaintiffs’ ability to ‘live healthful lives in Hawaii.’ …

“It named the Hawaii Department of Transportation and its director, as well as the state of Hawaii and its former governor David Ige, as defendants.

“The plaintiffs, most of whom are Indigenous, alleged that by contributing to the climate crisis, the state hastened the ‘decline and disappearance of Hawaii’s natural and cultural heritage.’ When the case was filed, the plaintiffs were between the ages of nine and 18. …

“Navahine, whose name is on the lawsuit, is a 16-year-old Native Hawaiian whose family has been farming the land ‘for 10 generations.’ Drought, flooding and sea level rise were all having immediate effects on her family’s crops, she said. ‘Seeing the effects, how we were struggling to make any money for our farm, kind of pushed me to this case,’ she said.

“Officials said the legal settlement brings together activists with all three branches of the state’s government to focus on meeting climate change goals, including mobilizing the judicial branch. The court will oversee the settlement agreement through 2045 or until the state reaches its zero emission goals, Rodgers said.”

More at the Guardian, here. No paywall. Donations sought.

Read Full Post »

Remember all the talk-show ridicule of the woman who sued McDonald’s and won big bucks for coffee that was too hot? Well, it turns out she was sitting still, she was badly burned, and McDonald’s had failed to correct the scalding temperature in spite of 700 complaints.

Now attorney Susan Saladoff, who believes that the tort-reform posse was defining the tone of the discussion, has made a movie countering the frivolous-lawsuits-run-amok mantra. She argues persuasively that lawsuits like the one in Hot Coffee protect the little guy from corporations run amok.

A review at American Prospect says, “no matter how many times the suit was used in Jay Leno monologues there was nothing funny about it. Liebeck [the complainant] was not careless, but spilled the coffee when she, as a passenger in a parked car, took the lid off the cup. The spill did not cause a trivial injury, but severe burns that required multiple operations and skin grafts to treat. McDonald’s, which served its coffee at 180 degrees [your home coffee maker is at 135 degrees], had received more than 700 complaints from customers, constituting a clear warning, but it nonetheless required its franchises to serve it at that temperature without warning customers.”

Stella Liebeck sued only after the medical bills overwhelmed her. Little of the settlement was left her after costs, and she didn’t live long to enjoy it.

More comments at AndrewSullivan.com.

Read Full Post »