Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/06/12/convicted-pharmabro-martin-shkreli-sued-for-allegedly-copying-rare-wu-tang-album.html
…
8 Likes
DAOs are still a thing? Try harder 2024!
10 Likes
They have to make money somehow. I guess there are worse ways than suing a fellow Libertarian dickhead.
13 Likes
It says a lot about those people that I’d sooner the money went to lawyers!
But there we are.
15 Likes
I am conflicted. On the one hand, Martin Shkreli is the epitome of the worst aspects of … well damn near everything, but tech, pharma, and investment industries for sure. On the other hand, I really hate that there’s this Wu-Tang album out there that’s supposed to remain a one copy only one of a kind thing that no one can hear except whoever has paid millions for the physical disc, and I’m not heartbroken if a digital copy has made it into the wild.
25 Likes
Dude’s gonna end up living in a van by the river.
Good.
19 Likes
Tasmania’s Mona gallery is going to be playing 30 minute edits of it in the coming months. Sucks that it’s not the full thing, but I like the idea of listening to albums being a social experience. Hopefully it’ll become an exhibit at other places and become a travelling roadshow kinda thing.
10 Likes
So for all of those who think that copying isn’t theft-why is this a problem? Why should these artists get to control their art once it’s in the wild? It’s not like the group didn’t get paid for their work, it wasn’t stolen from them without their consent, after all. And telling people what they can and can’t do with their own property is usually frowned upon, right? (Not talking about things like putting housing on wetlands)
Well you’re at the intersection of personal property ownership rights and the right to contract for whatever terms both sides agree to. This album was never released into the wild. The only copy (allegedly) was sold to Shkreli, and one of the terms of that contract was that he not release it or copy it, and if he sold it, those terms had to pass with the album to the new owner. So I don’t think copying of digital IP is theft in the same way that copying a physical object without permission is, but I also think people have the right to set whatever reasonable contract terms they want, as long as those terms aren’t illegal or unconscionable. And these terms aren’t either of those. Shkreli signed the contract. He agreed to those terms. And then he breached. This is a pretty simple case, and I don’t see how he’s not going to lose here. At the same time, selfishly, I want to hear the album.
18 Likes
Shkreli woke up and thought
15 Likes
Classic blunder, akin to starting a land war in Asia; because as we all know:
12 Likes
19 Likes
Hey, if there is only one copy, it is easy to prove who copied and released it.
And since it is practically inevitable that that will happen sooner rather than later, whoever paid the millions for the original will then have to pay again some more millions for the release. He can afford them, the artists get paid and the track is released in the wild anyway.
It’s a better business model than having all the revenue go to the label.
4 Likes
The butler did it?
2 Likes
With out going back to look it up, I thought that part of the deal with the Wu-Tang album is that the owner COULD decide to disseminate the music. And honestly I thought that was supposed to be part of the whole “performance art” concept of only making one copy.
Though this sounds like it’s an agreement between Shkreli and this “digital arts collective” that has been violated, in which case I really don’t care about when rich assholes collide. 
5 Likes
Well, at least it seems he’s learned valuable lessons from his incarceration.
Oh wait.
5 Likes
TBH, I’m surprised there’s not already a torrent of it.
2 Likes
There isnt A torrent of it. There are several, on the bay.
4 Likes
1 Like
