The Beastie Boys have won their lawsuit against Monster Beverage, which was initiated in 2012 after the company illegally used Beastie Boys' music in a promotional video, Rolling Stone reports. Following the group's previously-reported testimonials, the Beastie Boys have been awarded $1.7 million, though Monster's lawyer told Reuters that they plan to appeal the verdict.
The Beastie Boys' lawsuit against Monster Energy Drink was initiated in 2012 after the company included parts of the Beastie Boys' "Sabotage," "So What'cha Want," "Make Some Noise" and "Looking Down the Barrel of a Gun" on a promotional video on their website. They also allegedly included a 23-minute medley of Beastie Boys songs made available for download as an MP3. As Rolling Stone reports, the songs were taken from footage of a live set by DJ Z-Trip at the Canadian festival "Ruckus in the Rockies", which was sponsored by Monster and held only a few days after Adam Yauch died in May of that year.
The timing of the lawsuit was particularly relevant as Yauch's will specifically prohibits any company from using the group's music for advertisements. Reportedly, the Beastie Boys sought up to $2.5 million for copyright infringement and false endorsement. According to the Beastie Boys' complaint,
"The public was confused into believing that the plaintiffs sponsored, endorsed and are associated with defendant Monster in promoting defendant Monster's productions and promotional events."
The band claimed that Monster's unauthorized use of its music would cause "irreparable damage". Accordingly, they sought the removal of the video and MP3 from Monster's website.
Monster has responded that the case was "illogical", countering that the most they should owe is $125,000. Reps from the company have admitted that they infringed on the Beastie Boys' copyright, stating that an employee inadvertently believed Monster had permission to use the music.
Beastie Boys rapper Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz leaves federal court with his wife in Manhattan last month. AP Photo/Larry Neumeister
According to the legal opinion dismissing Z-Trip's involvement in the case last November, the presiding judge noted a Monster employee had sent Z-Trip a rough cut of a video using his Beastie Boys megamix. When Z-Trip replied, in part, "Dope!," the employee interpreted that to mean he had permission to run the video on Monster's website. Z-Trip testified that he was merely "convey[ing] that I liked how I appeared in the video."
A bulk of the opinion was spent on considering the legal definition of the word "dope" and if it legally constituted a license for Monster to use the video. As the court noted, "In proper context, the word 'Dope!' could certainly be taken as an expression, albeit unorthodox, of approval and acceptance of another’s antecedent offer," the court said. "But here, Z-Trip’s exclamation, 'Dope!' was in response to [the] query, 'Please have a look at the video from this past weekend and let me know if you approve.'
"Viewed in this context, Z-Trip’s response of 'Dope!' plainly communicated that, in some sense, he 'approve[d]' of 'the video.' But such approval is quite distinct from conveying assent to a mutual exchange of promises or other consideration. And it certainly did not convey that Z-Trip had authority to approve, on behalf of the Beastie Boys, a free license to Monster to use the Beastie Boys’ recordings and songs."
When asked for comment on Beastie Boys' court victory,
Z-Trip told Rolling Stone, "Dope!"
For their part, Monster Energy never denied using the music without a license, but claimed it was “a mistake.” DJ Z-Trip was set to spin Beastie Boys’ music at the Ruckus afterparty in honor of the then-recent passing of Yauch. Monster was apparently told that Z-Trip had permission to use the tracks, and the company went ahead and put them in their video. While admitting fault, their defense revolved around reducing the requested compensation; Beastie Boys were seeking $1 million for the song licenses and $1 million more for the “implied endorsement” the video projected. The defense argued $93,000 and $125,000 was more reasonable for the five weeks the video was up, during which time it received under 14,000 views.
Furthermore, the defense’s cross-examination sought to discredit Beastie Boys’ claim that they never used their music for licensing. A main focus was Mike D’s appearance in an ad for a watch company, as well as songs used in a snowboarding video for the same company. Horovitz defended the allowance, saying his bandmate was friends with the company owner and that profits were going towards charity. Besides which, he added, “We like sports… We come from a community of snowboarders, skateboarders, extreme sports world, so we’re enthusiasts of that.”
