Forced to Comment on EMI/MP3tunes Lawsuit

EMI filed a lawsuit against MP3tunes and Michael Robertson. I have never spoken in my blog about the EMI matter, because I was subpoenaed as a 3rd-party witness in this lawsuit. However, someone pointed me to the Wikipedia entry for Michael Robertson, where it was disclosed by others, not me (I have never made an entry to Michael Robertson's Wikipedia page), that I am a 3rd-party witness in the EMI case. Because I am a witness in this case, I will continue to remain quiet on the EMI lawsuit, other than to set the record straight on the following four statements in Robertson's Wikipedia entry (of which I think Michael Robertson made many of these statements himself as "Mykill"):

"...after he volunteered to help the major record label EMI..."

I never volunteer to "help EMI." I was subpoenaed to this deposition, asked questions by both sides, and simply told the truth. It will be up to the court system to decide who is "helped" by the truth of my testimony.

"Months have passed without any fact sheet or official documents which calls into question the validity of the claims."

This statement is false, as I have in fact filed official documents with the IRS and other government agencies. The statement is also misleading, since, as I mentioned in a previous blog, I was holding off on the "fact sheet" for certain reasons. I didn't say at that time what those reasons were, because I didn't want to mention the EMI case. However, now that this has been disclosed, I will share that the reason I have not yet issued the "fact sheet" is that I am in fact involved as a 3rd party in the EMI lawsuit, and there are two other lawsuits going on currently with Linspire (both involve Linspire trying to unwind the fair and reasonable severance payments I made to former employees who were laid off in good standing). I decided to wait on going public with the "fact sheet" until after these three lawsuits are concluded. I remain committed to exposing the truth and facts of the Linspire matter, but only after these lawsuits are concluded, as they may bring even more facts and light to the situation.

"He then asked for large portions of his testimony to be hidden from public scrutiny which raises suspicion of his claims."

My reasons for asking that my EMI/MP3tunes deposition remain confidential had nothing to do with "public scrutiny." The reason I asked for this, as I'm sure "Mykill" knows, was so that my EMI deposition could not be used in the two Linspire lawsuits going on now, or any future Linspire lawsuits, all of which have nothing to do with the EMI matter.

(No one knew about this other than the EMI and Linspire parties and their respective attorneys. I doubt EMI would have posted this, nor do I think MP3tune's lawyers spend their time on Wikipedia, so I can only assume that the Wikipedia user "Mykill" is "Michael" Robertson.)

On April 11, 2008, former Linspire CEO Kevin Carmony issued a collection of serious accusations against Michael Robertson via Carmony's personal blog. [9] Carmony's public accusations specify allegations that Michael Robertson/Linspire "has attempted to defraud a federally-insured bank, filed false documents with the IRS, knowingly filed a false report with the San Diego Police Department, and perpetrated deceit upon other federal and state government agencies."

Here is the actual statement from my blog: "The full story includes facts that lead me to believe Linspire has attempted to defraud a federally-insured bank, filed false documents with the IRS, knowingly filed a false report with the San Diego Police Department, and perpetrated deceit upon other federal and state government agencies."

The false statements on his Wikipedia page appear to be classic Robertson, trying to gain public favor by complaining about the injustices against him. I wonder why in his last Michael's Minute, instead of his minivan, he didn't show a photo of his Lexus sedan, his multi-million dollar beach-front home in Del Mar, or his 300+ acre ranch in San Diego? If Robertson and MP3tunes didn't violate copyright law, then they have nothing to be worried about. (Unless perhaps Robertson is STILL saying that MP3.com didn't violate copyright law? If so, this might explain why EMI is going after him personally, as he would appear to be unrepentant. If he didn't believe MP3.com violated copyright law, what would prevent him from doing it again?) I wonder why he's looking for sympathy from the public? Michael claims the big, bad record labels are picking on him, but what about multi-millionaire Michael, and all the little people HE'S kicked around throughout his life?

I'd correct these statements myself, but I wish to keep my status of never having edited Michael's Wikipedia page.

Kevin