10 ms·
DOJ: We Want Martin Shkreli’s Enigma Machine, Wu-Tang Album, and $7.3M
- uigvbhu 9y agoOne law and punishment for those who displease the powerful, and enitrely different law and punishment for the powerful Another speck of sand atop The mountain of evidence that the USA is no longer a country ruled by law.
- paulcole 9y agoApparently, he also claims to have Wayne's album Tha Carter V. Couldn't he do us a solid and just release it online before the government takes it?
- sremani 9y agoI think currently he is in Jail, but I followed him a bit on YouTube where he said, that he is contractually obligated not to release it for 88 years (for Wu Tang Clan album). One of the reason Wu Tang et al. released these limited edition albums was they hoped they would be bought by art museums or so, in this case ended up with private collector.
- wlesieutre 9y agoBut if someone seizes it from him through legal means they wouldn't be bound by that agreement, would they?
- godzillabrennus 9y agoI don't think they would. That'd be an interesting legal matter to see play out.
- jlgaddis 9y agoLet's say the government gets it, auctions it, you (legally) purchase it (at that auction), and are now the owner. While you wouldn't be bound by any agreements that Shkreli had w/ Wu-Tang Clan, you would still be in violation of copyright laws if you released it publicly (and the government could, potentially, put stipulations on its sale if they wanted). In addition, if you owned the only existing copy, I think it would be pretty easy to prove that it was you who released it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bogomipz 9y agoNone of that is true. Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright laws. >"There are strict limitations on the distribution of the 31-track double album, with a statement from the band reading: "It can be exhibited publicly and it can be given away for free. But it cannot be commercialised as a conventional album release until 2103"[1] [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/martin-shkreli-wu-tang-clan-album-sale-ebay-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin-bids-a7933636.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/m...
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago> Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright laws. Someone who buys it from a government auction is not bound by any contract signed by the original purchaser. They are still bound by copyright law, although the copyright holder (presumably Wu-Tang Clan) could (and likely would) allow them to exhibit it or give it away.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- austinprete 9y agoThe agreement only prevents its commercial release for 88 years [1], he can still release it as free under the contract however. [1] - http://www.musictimes.com/articles/30821/20150306/wu-tang-clan-statement-once-upon-time-shaolin-release.htm http://www.musictimes.com/articles/30821/20150306/wu-tang-cl...
- portends 9y agoIt’s interesting to see which forms of misogyny are acceptable and which aren’t.
- muninn_ 9y agoYup. Why aren't they seizing Al Franken's assets or Matt Lauer's? Why am I watching the news seeing somebody who accused Al Franken of grouping her not want him to resign but everybody is calling for Roy Moore's head? I think all of them are despicable but I don't really see that any of this makes sense.
- gravypod 9y agoApparently Tha Carter V is also being seized according to https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4319658-Shkreli-Forfeiture.html#document/p8/a390866 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4319658-Shkreli-Forf...
- PhasmaFelis 9y agoIt seems likely that the government would auction it off if they did take it. Clearly they're aware of its value, and there's no benefit from sticking it in a secret vault next to the Ark of the Covenant (as cool as that would be).
- tehwebguy 9y agoMissing from this article is this quote from his attorney: > "We will vigorously oppose the government motion," Shkreli’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, said in an email. "Our position is clear. None of the investors lost any money and Martin did not personally benefit from any of the counts of conviction. Accordingly, forfeiture of any assets is not an appropriate remedy." Anyone here know if this position is legitimate?
- easytiger 9y agoIt is accurate from the perspective the investors actually made a lot of money out of him. Matt Levine sums it all up very well: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-17/martin-shkreli-accused-of-being-surprisingly-good-at-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-17/martin-sh... In short his hedge fund tanked, he started some new companies, retrospectively backdated the shareholding of the new company to make his loss making investors from the previous failure shareholders, that company ended up being successful and floated, those investors made a lot of money. But everything about what he did to make that possible is entirely dodgy/illegal.
- shawnz 9y agoBut is his lawyer correct that forfeiture shouldn't occur in a situation like that?
- easytiger 9y agoThat I dunno. If no one has been left out of pocket, one could argue that there is nothing to return. Who or what are they compensating if no party suffered a material loss?
- lmitchell 9y agoI think the relevant quote from the judgment is: 'criminal forfeiture serves no remedial purpose, [and] is designed to punish the offender...' So they don't actually care about compensation, they just have the right and want him to bleed.
- morpheuskafka 9y agoI though he sold the album on ebay?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 1000units 9y agoAs someone who has been following this case very closely since the beginning and is familiar with everyone involved: The way this man has been treated is a disgrace to our judicial system and society.
- rsanheim 9y agoCare to elaborate?
- perardi 9y agoHe’s an absolutely loathsome creature, up to and including the point where he put out a bounty for Hillary Clinton’s hair. (It’s just a joke, guys! C’mon! Just bros bein’ bros!) But that’s the problem. You can’t really have rule of law and increase someone’s punishment because, well, they’re an asshole. The amount of legally-defined harm he caused is trivial. You can argue they’re putting every possible punishment they can on top because he was a dick who raised the price of drugs and is seemingly 4Chan incarnate. (But oh man is that little pharma bro manlet so punchable. So, so punchable.)
- 1000units 9y agoWatch out before you throw any punches, he's tough. He's going to bounce back from all of this.
- DenisM 9y ago>You can’t really have rule of law and increase someone’s punishment because, well, they’re an asshole His punishment is not even known yet, the sentencing is not due for another seven weeks. Perhaps you meant it more broadly, then where do you see injustice being done? Is the evidence made up? Was the jury rigged or unduly influenced? Was he deprived of legal counsel?
- TheAdamAndChe 9y agoI'm not so sure. If a person has historically been an outstanding citizen, I think that it should be considered when judging someone. Otherwise, why not just have a single punishment with a predetermined timespan for every single conviction?
- mychael 9y agoYesterday's Kate Steinle article got flagged, but this article on Martin Shkreli's Wu Tang record did not. Wow.
- wpdev_63 9y agoWhatever he is going to be convicted of, they're going to throw the book at him. He's a terrible person and an opportunist. The problem is he is not the only one like this. In an interview with Vice he goes over the fact that what he did is common practice[0]. Until there is some way to stop this price gauging there will be more people like him. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g
- wpdev_63 9y agoIf you are going to downvote me, atleast tell me why. EDIT: Just realized I misspelled price gauging - it should be price 'gouging'
- exabrial 9y agoI won't comment on his demeanor, I think we all feel the same way about his mannerisms. I do hope he gets some sort of mistrial eventually. What happened is not justice, it's mob vengeance with biased judges and prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. This reminds me so much of the Aaron Swartz "trial".
- vilhelm_s 9y agoThis seems really insane to me. He was convicted of financial fraud. Then afterwards he made a post on twitter, and now prosecutors can have him jailed for it and even forfeit millions of dollars in assets? Even if you think the tweet about Hillary Clinton's hair was illegal harassment or instigation or whatever, surely the state should be required to prove that! Apparently if you have been convicted of some (completely unrelated) crime, you lose all due process rights and in the future the state can punish you arbitrarily much with no trial at all.
- ryacko 9y agoI think the state did prove it. For certain cases, you don't have a right to trial by jury, such as bail revocation. And often it is decided on a preponderance of the evidence standard. I don't know the specifics of bail revocation case law, but there are worse known cases, like contempt of court. Martin Armstrong was held for years, the All Writs act is being use as an anti-encryption measure, etc.
- voidr 9y agoRecommend watching this video and others that are on his channel before believing what the media says about him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l__qN9Qt3Hc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l__qN9Qt3Hc I only became familiar with Martin Shkreli's story a only few days ago, yet it has become my main example that I'll point out when talking about: - corrupt media and fake news - corrupt populist people in power - political witch hunts - public that is trivial to mislead You can easily verify the claims made by the media and the claims made by him and see exactly who is right and who is wrong, there is no moral grey area.
- pas 9y agoCould you be a bit more specific? A few examples would be helpful.
- solotronics 9y agoFree Martin! It's horrible that people think it's ok to put someone in jail just for being offensive. Freedom of speech?