this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
507 points (99.6% liked)

Music

9335 readers
109 users here now

↳ Our family Communities:

➰#Music

Music.world - !music@lemmy.world

Jazz -!jazz@lemmy.world

Album Art Porn - !albumartporn@lemmy.world

Fake Album Covers - !fakealbumcovers@lemm.ee

Obscure Music - !ObscureMusic@lemm.ee

Vinyl and LP's - !vinyl@lemmy.world

Electronic Dance Music - !edm@reddthat.com

60's Music - !60smusic@lemmy.world

70's Music - !70smusic@lemmy.world

80's Music - !80smusic@lemmy.world

90's Music - !90smusic@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] raltoid@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Exceed $1 Million

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

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 day 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.

[–] grillme@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago

It says statutory right in the article. $150k seems like the legal limit per song.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

I’d be disappointed if he didn’t make a record after it.

[–] meliodas_101@lemmy.world 83 points 1 day ago (3 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.

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.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

Been going after individual users long enough I guess

[–] Gryficowa@szmer.info 1 points 17 hours ago
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 102 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 103 points 1 day ago (2 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.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 56 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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!

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day 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.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Maybe it's just the actual damages.

Suing in America is funny because they always want as much as possible.

[–] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 49 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

/s, just in case.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day 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)

[–] rem26_art@fedia.io 40 points 1 day ago (1 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?

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

$3.50 a pop.

[–] Reckless_Moose@ttrpg.network 24 points 1 day ago

Well it was about that time that I noticed that the Beetles Agent was about 8 stories tall and a crustacean from the protozoic era

[–] rem26_art@fedia.io 8 points 1 day ago

Throw in a couple of Nirvana tracks and you got yourself a deal

[–] Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 day ago

Hell yeah, get their asses Slim!

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

Meta: "Ooooooh! A whole million dollars!"

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago
[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

Testiclean is a wholly owned subordinate of Meta. He doesn't tip.

You wouldn't believe how much he pays his taint washer.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] ABetterTomorrow@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

Did he forget how to spell billions?

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago

A million.

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

[–] Ignot@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is that Eminem Che Guevara?

[–] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it's his new look since around 2016ish. I've gotten quite used to it, actually, and I think it fits him quite a bit

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 1 day ago

If I just saw him out of the corner of my eye, I would think it's actually Justin Timberlake.

[–] Damage@feddit.it -2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

He looks fucking weird, is it the plastic surgery?

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Nah, it's the weird beard

~this~ ~is~ ~a~ ~reference~

[–] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

why you yellin at the mic

[–] 474D@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

He's a grandfather now, people age. This isn't slim shady

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago

that's called facial hair.