Eminem music publisher, Apple settle out of court

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    i hope they stop carrying his music...
  • Reply 22 of 42
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Your posts still don't answer my question- If Apple is inccocent then why are they settling?



    It was settled out of court. No one knows what the settlement was.

    Apple could have told Eight Mile/Eminem, 'Drop the lawsuit against us or we quit selling your music" and they agreed to settle out of court.

    As I noted in my first post, Aftermath likely agreed to give a larger percentage to Eight Mile and Apple agreed to keep selling his music.



    Besides, innocence/guilt often has little to do with out of court settlements.

    Sometimes it's easier and quicker to settle than pay excessive legal fees.

    In this case, likely Apple decided it would be easier to keep selling his music than pay a bunch of legal fees.

    Quote:

    Are you that daft?



    No, but obviously you are.
  • Reply 23 of 42
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Your posts still don't answer my question- If Apple is inccocent then why are they settling?

    Are you that daft?



    I know your question and subsequent insult weren't directed at me, but one possible explanation is that many times it is cheaper for both parties to settle than go through a long, drawn-out process of litigation.



    Settlement also might happen when one party has an air-tight case and the other party knows it and doesn't want to embarras themselves in court.
  • Reply 24 of 42
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    It was settled out of court. No one knows what the settlement was.

    Apple could have told Eight Mile/Eminem, 'Drop the lawsuit against us or we quit selling your music" and they agreed to settle out of court.

    As I noted in my first post, Aftermath likely agreed to give a larger percentage to Eight Mile and Apple agreed to keep selling his music.



    Besides, innocence/guilt often has little to do with out of court settlements.

    Sometimes it's easier and quicker to settle than pay excessive legal fees.

    In this case, likely Apple decided it would be easier to keep selling his music than pay a bunch of legal fees.



    OK- So show me where Eminem was suing Apple to only ensure they would keep selling his music as opposed to suing for money. Somewhere I read something about $2.5 million.

    Jeesh.



    Quote:

    All your posts are so difficult...



    As opposed to yours which never make sense?
  • Reply 25 of 42
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:

    So show me where Eminem was suing Apple to only ensure they would keep selling his music



    Why should I show you that? I never wrote that's what he was suing for.



    Trying to convey thoughts to you is like that telephone line game in elementary school.

    The teacher whispers "The car is blue and I read a book" to the 1st student then it gets passed to the next student it goes around and the last student says, "you told the 1st sudent, "A dancing gummy bear is about to devour China"".

  • Reply 26 of 42
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    I know your question and subsequent insult weren't directed at me, but one possible explanation is that many times it is cheaper for both parties to settle than go through a long, drawn-out process of litigation.



    Settlement also might happen when one party has an air-tight case and the other party knows it and doesn't want to embarras themselves in court.



    In both your examples that would only pertain to the party being sued. If it was the other way around you would want in case 1.) To prove your innocence or 2.) Embarass the ass out of the suer in court and clear your name.
  • Reply 27 of 42
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    Why should I show you that? I never wrote that's what he was suing for.



    Trying to convey thoughts to you is like that telephone line game in elementary school.

    The teacher whispers "The car is blue and I read a book" to the 1st student then it gets passed to the next student it goes around and the last student says, "you told the 1st sudent, "A dancing gummy bear is about to devour China"".





    Reread my last line posted above. And then reread it maybe 25, no 50 times more.
  • Reply 28 of 42
    jupiteronejupiterone Posts: 1,564member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    I suggest you reread the last paragraph of the article.



    No less than 5 times does the article say it was Eight Mile Style who was suing Apple, but I guess you missed that. A simple Google search shows that the last paragraph is wrong. Eminem (Marshall Mathers) never sued Apple himself this time or in 2004.
  • Reply 29 of 42
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post


    No less than 5 times does the article say it was Eight Mile Style who was suing Apple, but I guess you missed that. A simple Google search shows that the last paragraph is wrong. Eminem (Marshall Mathers) never sued Apple himself this time or in 2004.



    So then why is it there?



    Doesn't his publisher represent his interests as well as their own?
  • Reply 30 of 42
    jupiteronejupiterone Posts: 1,564member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    So then why is it there?



    How should I know, I didn't write it. Are you saying that AI has never made a mistake in their articles?



    But to give them the benefit of the doubt, Eminem vs. Apple is more eye catching than Eight Mile Style vs. Apple
  • Reply 31 of 42
    I think if he's going to whine about Apple so much as he has historically done over the years, constantly suing for various things, they should just pull his music. When I have a problem client, I simply inform them that we will no longer be providing services for them. Sure, they'll lose a little money on the downloads but they'll probably save even more not having to pay all of the ridiculous court costs, attorney's fees and settlement amounts.
  • Reply 32 of 42
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Okay,



    Lets look at the facts as well as we can possibly know them..



    Apple & Eminem and/or the studio representing Eminem (well one of the studios anyway) attempted to negotiate a settlement to all of this prior to the trial and no common ground was found.



    The trial began this week (Monday?) and a mere 4 days into the trial a negotiated settlement was found.... What does that indicate? That's anyones guess... but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that either the trial was going very well for one side or very badly for the other.



    However even that assumption might be wrong.
  • Reply 33 of 42
    nceencee Posts: 857member
    I would be interested in this, if he made music? What da fucck is that shiet he's saying.



    And there are foks who have commented and said the Beatles suck? what fuccking planet are they from?



    Put my on a island and ask me what music I want to have, and the Beatles will win, each and every time.



    Out of respect for anyone who LISTENS to MUSIC ? I'd pull his shiet off the site, but that's just me.



    Skip
  • Reply 34 of 42
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    A song for Eminem and Teckstud:



    "My name is,

    My name is,

    My name is,

    L_O_S_E_R."



    Repeat as necessary.
  • Reply 35 of 42
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justflybob View Post


    A song for Eminem and Teckstud:




    Shew fly!

    Shew
  • Reply 36 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud


    In both your examples that would only pertain to the party being sued. If it was the other way around you would want in case 1.) To prove your innocence or 2.) Embarass the ass out of the suer in court and clear your name.



    I almost hope you are trolling here, because if this is your genuine opinion, then your ignorance of U.S. law is frightening.



    1) Apple does not need to prove their innocence. No defendant does. U.S. courts do not decide guilt or innocence, it is guilty or not-guilty. A subtle but important difference. Also, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If that isn't met then the defendant doesn't need to do anything.



    2) Corporations do not feel embarrassment, nor the need to cause it in others. Just because Apple was charged with something, doesn't mean they need to "clear their name", whatever that means to you. The U.S. doesn't have a "loser pays" system, so the lawyer fees to keep the case going becomes the overriding reason for these types of settlements. Apple's lawyers don't work for free, you know. Why should Apple pay all that money, and tie the court up for all that time just to prove what they don't need to, and don't care about anyway?
  • Reply 37 of 42
    oneof52oneof52 Posts: 113member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    I doubt Apple lost or had to give up anything.

    They were simply named because they were selling the songs licensed from Aftermath.

    Had Apple not been named, Aftermatch could have said in court that Apple was actually distributing the music and they weren't named in the lawsuit so the case against them (Aftermath) should be tossed out.



    Exactly (from a practicing lawyer of over 15 years).
  • Reply 38 of 42
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oneof52 View Post


    Exactly (from a practicing lawyer of over 15 years).



    So I suppose when Michael Jackson settled out of court with that young man back in 1993 there wasn't any perception that we was rightfully sued.
  • Reply 39 of 42
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 7600/132 View Post


    1) Apple does not need to prove their innocence. No defendant does. U.S. courts do not decide guilt or innocence, it is guilty or not-guilty. A subtle but important difference. Also, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If that isn't met then the defendant doesn't need to do anything.



    2) Corporations do not feel embarrassment, nor the need to cause it in others. Just because Apple was charged with something, doesn't mean they need to "clear their name", whatever that means to you. The U.S. doesn't have a "loser pays" system, so the lawyer fees to keep the case going becomes the overriding reason for these types of settlements. Apple's lawyers don't work for free, you know. Why should Apple pay all that money, and tie the court up for all that time just to prove what they don't need to, and don't care about anyway?



    You know absolutely no more than me or anybody else.

    Quote:

    details of the settlement were not revealed.



    YOu have no way in knowing if this included anything monetary. If you do fill us in or please stop trolling for Apple.
  • Reply 40 of 42
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AppleInsider:

    details of the settlement were not revealed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    YOu have no way in knowing if this included anything monetary. If you do fill us in or please stop trolling for Apple.



    You quote AppleInsider's original article and tell them to stop trolling their own website?

Sign In or Register to comment.