[Settled] Lawsuit With Ultra Records

[lurker123]

I went back and read through Michelle's counterclaim ( I don't speak legalese but it's pretty easy to understand, I still think it may come down to specific wording of the email, how explicit communications were between them, etc.

Perhaps if I knew more about legal matters, I wouldn't be so easily persuaded by the claims and the counterclaims. On one hand the counterclaim seems to say, and give lots of examples of, Ultra's consent to Michelle using their music. On the other hand, Ultra's complaint says Michelle was informed and knows that she was in violation of the copyright, but just kept going.

I don't see how the two could both happen...don't know what to believe :/

[Chlorophyll]

My guess is she is hoping with her huge dumb fanbase, maybe one will be her fan or she can give puppy dog eyes at them to make them feel sad...

She's stupid enough that she probably really does think this....wow I'm sad now.

I hope she really enjoyed that vacation in Korea. If things go south it might be the last bit of fun she gets to have for a good long while.

[aamomo]

After reading some articles regarding whether emails can be binding contracts, the answers is 50/50. I think it will come down to what the judge thinks.

[Nanane]

Is it too early to tell? Or has Michelle managed to slither her way out of this mess just like every other scandals she's been in. I swear this girl has a lucky rabbit's foot up her butt or something!

[bloodcoffee]

X_X We need news. I wish court cases weren't so drawn out.

[Blazikenblade01]

Since when was e-mails ever were legal binding documents? Last time I checked e-mails weren't contracts. Also the email outline specifies 'content' doesn't specifically say what, and more than likely was just a general ok. A contract wasn't done so Ultra does have the rights to sue. Phan should've specifically asked what it all covers. I don't see her winning this case.

[murmur]

Having been in a few lawsuits, emails do serve as proof she "had" permission as long as someone (forgot his name; too lazy to find) had the authority to "OK" her to use the music. It doesn't necessarily need to be an official contract. Verbal contracts are contracts and can be enforced (but hard to do if one of the parties lied about there being a verbal contract) but in her case she does have some sort of documentation (emails) giving her some sort of permission. It's hard to say since we don't have more evidence to see such as those emails. Court cases can take very long, I've mostly filed evictions and small claims, and cases take about 2-3 months before trial. Wonder what the lawyers are negotiating about... there hasn't been an update in a while.

Side note: I was watching Judge Judy and it would be funny to watch Judge Judy do her thing on Mish. Too bad it's small claims and in NY.

[mystical-rose]

^lol Judge Judy would tear her apart. I would pay $ to watch that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blazikenblade01]

Verbal contracts cannot be enforced if there was no record eg, it was voice recorded. Emails I do find not binding unless very specific. The wording 'content is to broad & laise faire/loosely used. Especially if there's licenses that are given for such things in relation to this. In this scenario per say if a license was the purpose for using his media in any sort then why wasn't a license issued. I think that's the gotcha card everyone's been so wondering on. Its like saying in an e-mail;

"Hey, can I use your music in my video" Then they reply "of course" to me that's not really binding. There's no specifics.

Maybe I've looked too much into this kind of thing LOL.

[DaylightAmy]

I'm guessing she's not just hoping to have subbies on the jury (which is a REALLY gross thought - her thinking people would make a legal decision purely because they worship her) - I also think she will be relying on civilian minds to not care that much about copyright (in the light of piracy) to multimillion corporations.

The emails may serve as evidence that there was no intent to break the law, they however do not change that a law may have been broken without an official, signed contract giving her permission to use the music, depending on the position of the person emailing.

If I email someone I am in contact with at Best Buy that I want a free new phone, and that person says 'sure come pick it up' - that makes them an accomplice to theft if I am not mistaken, and it doesn't make me any less of a thief (perhaps more of an idiot though).

[Cinnamon_Dulce]

Damn. Still no update

[amuto_lover]

^^ well actually the other day michelle did a q&a and someone asked about the lawsuit and she said something along the lines of " all I can say is that I started my own record label"

So I guess the lawsuit is far from over.

[Cinnamon_Dulce]

Oh. Maybe she settled? How would we know?

[Trololol]

^^ well actually the other day michelle did a q&a and someone asked about the lawsuit and she said something along the lines of " all I can say is that I started my own record label"

So I guess the lawsuit is far from over.

That's just the most evasive answer ever. Starting your own label is just a passive aggressive move when faced with a lawsuit.

[amuto_lover]

Nah, it's better to be evasive when it comes to these types of things. You have to be careful otherwise what you say or write can be used as evidence in court.

I personally don't think that her record label is entirely hers,I think the label already existed before she was sued.
The only thing that she wanted was unlimited access to people's music.
Michelle has never built a business on her own, from scratch her businesses are someone else's ideas.

Ipsy - someone else's idea
Em- l'Oreal's idea
Fawn- googles idea
Shift- someone else's idea
She's never done anything herself yet she thinks she's the ultimate business woman.

[Chlorophyll]

The only thing that she wanted was unlimited access to people's music.

Her horrible sense of timing is downright uncanny. It almost feels like her lawyer told her to pull this little stunt so they can fall back on the insanity defense if all else fails.

I imagine that Michelle took the news of the lawsuit pretty hard. Then she immediately set about trying to put a positive spin on it by starting "her own record company," so someday she would be able to boast that even being sued can't bring her down. How messed up is that? She can't even just back down and admit that she was in the wrong about something.

Don't get me wrong....it's GREAT when bigger companies allow people to use their stuff for the sake of free advertising. But when the rightful owner decides you're making a little too much profit from their product...you need to back down and try to cut a deal. It's just life. Not even special snowflakes like Michelle are immune to the law.

[Chlorophyll]

Pardon my double posting. I was just wondering if anybody heard any new news about the lawsuit? It's been a while since I've been online. I was caring for a sick family member.

[Trololol]

Pardon my double posting. I was just wondering if anybody heard any new news about the lawsuit? It's been a while since I've been online. I was caring for a sick family member.

Nothing new. I wouldn't hold my breath over it. But I do wish that something happens soon. We're all curious to see the end result.

[Chlorophyll]

Damn. These things can draw out for years. Ugh.

It 's February now. Hopefully we find something out by next year. I'm really itching for a decision.

[backspace]

Any updates ...?