FUSTÉ OVERLOOKS THE $1,000,000 SONOLUX-LAMCO INFRINGEMENT
Incredible: Millions of records sold but it never happened
In the Venegas v ACEMLA-LAMCO, a very strange, incredible and obvious oversight occurred.
In the 1990s, record company and RIAA member Sonolux, who produced copies of at least 16 different CDs with Venegas songs. Just one of the CDs is known to have sold over 5 million copies. The production always commenced without song licenses from anyone, in violation of the law.
When the Venegas heirs approached the Sonolux to work out a royalty payment plan in 1997 for the then known one CD (LAMCO hid the learned much later fact that it was producing over 16 diffrerent record with Venegas owned songs). Instead of paying, Sonolux decided to workout a deal with Latin American Company (LAMCO) who had also approached them, claiming to own the Sonolux recorded Venegas songs. The problem was that LAMCO was a rogue claimant of the Venegas songs. LAMCO then made deals with the infringer Sonolux which included issuing retroactive licenses and a music co-publishing deal and who knows what elses (LAMCO was never deposed).
OK, so LAMCO infringed the Venegas songs by authorizing Sonolux to make infringing records and took the royalty money that did not belong to them. LAMCO never denied this infringement. As a result, the Venegas family was not paid by Sonolux about $1,00,000 (present value).
But, said Judge José A. Fusté in his opinion (pdf):"LAMCO issued a mechanical license to Sonolux for the songs Desde que te marchaste and No me digas cobarde."
"Sonolux paid a total of $67,912.92 to LAMCO for this license; however, these moneys subsequently were reimbursed to Sony/Sonolux."
The question here are:
Why did Judge Fusté not award any damages against LAMCO? , worth about $1,00,000 (present worth) even though the basic facts were recognized in his opinion, that LAMCO infringed by licensing Sonolux and their also infringing CDs.
Has a bank robber ever been found innocent because the money was returned before the trial? Without proof the money was returned?
Why was LAMCO allowed to claim that they returned the money to Sonolux without showing any documentary evidence of such an act?
Why was the huge and blatant $1,000,000 oversight not overturned on appeal?
Who was Fusté really protecting in this absurd decision making process? Over 200 errors!
Why did Fusté also overlook another obvious infringement, a $43,405,000 one?
Why did Fusté only award $21,000 in damages to the Venegas family when in fact the trial expenses to these are over $250,000?
Any explanations? Yes there are explanations, but such explanations cannot be given at present. Please stay tuned.
You are reading judicial history in the making.