{"id":3007,"date":"2024-10-14T19:16:32","date_gmt":"2024-10-14T19:16:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/martin-shkreli-must-testify-about-copying-it\/"},"modified":"2024-10-14T19:16:32","modified_gmt":"2024-10-14T19:16:32","slug":"martin-shkreli-must-testify-about-copying-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/martin-shkreli-must-testify-about-copying-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Martin Shkreli Must Testify About Copying It"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tAmid a federal lawsuit, a judge says Martin Shkreli must personally go to court and testify under oath about the extent to which he copied and shared <a href=\"https:\/\/billboard.com\/artist\/Wu-Tang-Clan\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Wu-Tang Clan<\/a>\u2019s rare album <em>Once Upon a Time in Shaolin<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tIn a brief ruling Friday (Oct. 11), Judge <strong>Pamela K. Chen<\/strong> scheduled a hearing for next month to resolve the issue of what exactly Shkreli did with <em>Once Upon<\/em>, an ultra-rare Wu-Tang record that he once owned but was forced to forfeit to federal prosecutors after he was convicted of securities fraud.<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tThe judge said the ruling was designed to \u201cresolve the deficiencies\u201d in Shkreli\u2019s previous sworn statements about the fate of the album, in which the pharma exec said he wasn\u2019t sure who might still have copies.<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t\u201cDefendant Shkreli will be called upon to testify under oath regarding the copying and distribution of the album\u2019s tracks,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cBoth parties will be permitted to question defendant Shkreli on these issues.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tWu-Tang\u2019s fabled album was recorded in secret and published just once, on a CD secured in an engraved nickel and silver box. In addition to the bizarre trappings, <em>Once Upon<\/em> came with strict legal stipulations \u2014 namely, that the one-of-a-kind album could not be released to the general public until 2103.<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tIn 2015, Shkreli \u2014 soon to become infamous as the man who intentionally spiked the price of crucial AIDS medications \u2014 bought <em>Once Upon<\/em> at auction for $2 million. But after he was convicted of securities fraud in 2017, he forfeited it to federal prosecutors to help pay his multi-million dollar restitution sentence. PleasrDAO, a collective of early NFT collectors and digital artists, then bought the album from the government in 2021 for $4 million, and in 2024 acquired the copyrights and other rights for another $750,000.<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tAmid recent efforts to monetize <em>Once Upon<\/em>, Pleasr sued Shkreli in June after he made threats to release the album publicly and destroy the exclusivity that the company had purchased. The lawsuit accused him of both breaching the federal forfeiture order and violating federal trade secrets law, which protects valuable proprietary information from misappropriation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tIn August, Judge Chen granted Pleasr a preliminary injunction requiring Shkreli to hand over any copies of <em>Once Upon<\/em> that were still in his possession. Shkreli\u2019s attorneys had argued he had the right to create private copies when he owned the album and could retain them even after he forfeited the original copy, but the judge rejected that argument.<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tLast month, Shkreli told the judge he had \u201csearched my devices, electronic accounts, and other personal effects\u201d and handed over any copies he owned. He swore that he had done so \u201cunder penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tBut he also said he didn\u2019t know exactly who he had shared it with, and that some of them probably still have copies.<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\t\u201cBecause I shared the musical work several times several years ago, I cannot recall each and every time that I have shared the musical work,\u201d he told the judge. \u201cIt is possible, and indeed I find it highly likely, that one of the many people who viewed, heard, or otherwise accessed the musical work via my social media recorded the musical work and retains a copy of the same.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tAttorneys for Pleasr weren\u2019t pleased. In a response filing days later, they told the judge that Shkreli\u2019s disclosure \u201cfalls short\u201d of the judge\u2019s requirements and \u201craises doubts as to whether Defendant has, in fact, made a good faith effort to comply.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"paragraph larva \/\/ lrv-u-margin-lr-auto  lrv-a-font-body-m   \">\n\tOn Friday, Judge Chen responded with her order requiring Shkreli to appear in court. His attorneys did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday (Oct. 14).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Amid a federal lawsuit, a judge says Martin Shkreli must personally go to court and testify under oath about the extent to which he copied and shared Wu-Tang [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3008,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[3818,1855,1856,3817],"class_list":["post-3007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-copying","tag-martin","tag-shkreli","tag-testify"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3007","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3007"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3007\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3008"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}