Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music The Courts United States

'Pharma Bro' Martin Shkreli's One-of-a-Kind Wu-Tang Clan Album Sold By US Government (npr.org) 46

Posted by BeauHD from the sucks-for-you-bro dept.
H_Fisher writes: Only one copy exists of the Wu-Tang Clan album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, and it was owned by "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli. Now, NPR reports that this album has been sold by the U.S. government to an unnamed buyer in order to pay Shkreli's civil forfeiture judgment following his conviction for securities fraud. The album, which was originally sold for $2 million, exists only as one physical CD copy. It was seized along with other assets in 2018, and while the sale price and buyer weren't identified, Shkreli's attorney says that his client has now repaid the $7.4 million forfeiture judgement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Pharma Bro' Martin Shkreli's One-of-a-Kind Wu-Tang Clan Album Sold By US Government More

'Pharma Bro' Martin Shkreli's One-of-a-Kind Wu-Tang Clan Album Sold By US Government

Comments Filter:

  • News that Matters (Score:3)

    by parityshrimp ( 6342140 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2021 @06:21PM (#61627677)
    Slashdot finally keeping it 100 and living up to the tagline.

    • Slashdot finally keeping it 100 and living up to the tagline.

      It's a story about Martin Shkreli, the generic 100 should be raised to 750 ...

  • The price paid is confidential. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by innocent_white_lamb ( 151825 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2021 @06:30PM (#61627713)

    Why is the price paid being held confidential?

    Isn't the operation of the courts, including things like forfeitures, public business?

    "We just seized valuable property X from alleged bad guy Y but we won't tell you how much we sold it for."

    How do we know it wasn't sold to the sheriff's brother-in-law for $1?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 )

      [a] Why is the price paid being held confidential?

      [b] How do we know it wasn't sold to the sheriff's brother-in-law for $1?

      [a] Don't know, but depending on how much other stuff was seized and sold to cover his debt, the CD sold for between $0.01 and $7.4M.

      ... while the sale price and buyer weren't identified, Shkreli's attorney says that his client has now repaid the $7.4 million forfeiture judgement.

      [b] Personally, I hope is was sold for $1 (and the other stuff covered his debt) to maximize the number of his assets sold and their devaluation.

      If there's any karma, he'll end up needing one of his own medicines, but too poor to afford it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sg_oneill ( 159032 )

      Isn't the operation of the courts, including things like forfeitures, public business?

      The Trustee will likely be appointed by the police or sherif or whoever it is in charge of fullflling the civil forfeiture order. Quite likely a bankerupcy trustee. These people generally have a legal obligation to maintain commercial confidence. Its very unlikely that it was actual police themselves doing the auctioning, but rather they've appointed someone, and that arangement itself will be subject to commercial confide

    • How do we know it wasn't sold to the sheriff's brother-in-law for $1?

      Because it's not relevant. The important part is the value of the assets siezed and the restitution paid by the the little shit, not the ultimate value it was finally sold for.

      In fact I hope that the government sold it at a huge discount, I hope they took 7.4 million of his assets and sold them for $1 each leaving the worthless shit with nothing. If some sheriff's brother in law is enriched in the process, well more power to him.

      • Re: The price paid is confidential. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by KramberryKoncerto ( 2552046 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @02:32AM (#61628691)

        When what you want is allowed, there will be more incentives to press false charges and take things away from random people. This is the reason we need due process. It's bad to make things too easy for the government. I can't believe this needs to be spelled out.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
        I get what you're saying, but the part I'm concerned about is allowing the government to do this work without public insight / oversight of the process. Anything the government hides from us is an opportunity for corruption (from all politicians, in all countries, and from all parties). Corruption still occurs in the light as well, but we have a better chance of catching it.
    • If it was, he can write off $1,999,999 on his taxes next year as a capital loss.

  • How much do you want to be that half the people involved in seizing and guarding this "no one but owner allowed to hear" listened to it?

    I mean, it's a victimless crime, that is almost impossible to prove.

    • The album was not distributed on the condition that no-one except the owner being allowed to listen to it. Rather, there was only one copy made, and the purchaser was free to do whatever they wanted with it.

      The album was promoted as a unique work of art with no physical or digital duplicate in existence - kind-of like this recent NFT craze, but without it being digital.

      Shkreli himself actually broadcast parts of the album on Periscope and Hitbox after Trump won the election in 2016.

      • The album was promoted as a unique work of art with no physical or digital duplicate in existence - kind-of like this recent NFT craze, but without it being digital.

        Well... it's a CD, so it *is* "digital" ... -- just being pedantic :-)

      • Not exactly anything they wanted.

        A legal agreement with the purchaser stipulated that the album cannot be commercially exploited until 2103, although it can be played during listening parties.

    • Well, no one saw any lawyers or the judge leaving the courtroom sobbing uncontrollably and shouting "please get it out of my head!"

  • Sounds legit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2021 @06:33PM (#61627729)
    Now that we have NFT's, paying millions for a unique copy of a Compact Disc sounds, in retrospect, downright earnest. At least it exists.

    • NFT audio of the disc. Keep the address secret, it's not public.

      Give the owner permission to "show" the audio at museums.

      Yeah, it would get copied and put on the internet at some point.

      But that's more like people taking a photo of art in a museum.

  • Normally I don’t gloat when people gets what coming to them, but this guy had it coming. It’s rare that there’s someone who so obviously deserves to be knocked down a few pegs, and I’m honestly surprised that it happened in such a delicious way.

  • What rights come with it? (Score:3)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2021 @07:00PM (#61627819)

    Does it come with rights beyond personal use?

    If it comes with the right to duplicate and distribute I could see it potentally being worth a lot of money.

    • Re:What rights come with it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ac22 ( 7754550 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2021 @08:08PM (#61627991)

      Wu-Tang Clan specified in their contract that the new owner can release the album, after waiting 88 years. The contract also says (really):

      The buying party also agrees that at any time during the stipulated 88 year period, the seller may legally plan and attempt to execute one (1) heist or caper to steal back Once Upon A Time In Shaolin, which, if successful, would return all ownership rights to the seller. Said heist or caper can only be undertaken by currently active members of the Wu-Tang Clan and/or actor Bill Murray, with no legal repercussions.

      https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-... [nme.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TWX ( 665546 )

        It would be funny if the recipient successfully claims that the stipulations only apply to Shkreli, or that the penalties associated with violating the stipulations remain with him as this is seized property, or if these silly stipulations do not apply given the nature of the seizure.

      • "Your honor, the prosecution asserts that the plan to steal back the item in question did not meet the legal requirements to be considered either a 'heist' or 'caper.' We will introduce evidence which proves that not only did the comedic elements of the plan, including oversized Richard Nixon facemasks, an elaborately choreographed sequence of passing tools from member to member in a crowded art gallery, including a video montage with a voice over narration being produced, qualify this plan as a 'caper,' b

  • HAHA (Score:3)

    by Malays2 bowman ( 6656916 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2021 @07:54PM (#61627957)

    That's all I have to say. If there is a hell, the bastard deserves to rot in it.

    • Yeah, never mind ISIS executioners, or child murderers, or war criminals. That Martin Shkreli, with his annoying face, and Wu Tang Clan album - he's truly the worst, right?

      • Shkreli is responsible for more deaths than many of those executioners or murderers. He just achieves his kills indirectly: They are people who die because they are unable to afford life-saving medication, because Shkreli either personally ordered severe price increases or because he interfered with the regulatory process in order to manipulate stock prices for his own gain. Most murderers have to look at their victims in person, Shkreli only needed to look at spreadsheets.

      • Do you know why he is so hated? It's not just because he's rich or that he is big pharma. I'll leave it to you to find out why.

  • Funny thing is, the album is probably nothing but fucking noise. LOL.

  • "Shkreli's attorney says that his client has now repaid the $7.4 million forfeiture judgement."

    I hope that now we'll never hear from that dude ever again, while he rots in jail.

  • And if it isn't garbage we can't be sure whether it was him or the new owner if we see tracks released at some point in the future.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close