Monster Energy Sued by UMG Over Beastie Boys Songs…

  • Save

The Beastie Boys were recently awarded $1.7 million for the same misuse.  Now, Universal Music now wants a piece of the action.   According to paperwork just filed, UMG is now suing Monster Energy for the unauthorized use of five Beastie Boys songs.

Monster used the five songs in a video recap of a snowboarding event they held.  DJ Z-Trip mixed the songs as the soundtrack, telling Monster they had permission to use the songs in their video.  Monster failed to verify this statement, and it turns out they didn’t have permission at all.

UMG subsidiaries Capitol Records and Universal-Polygram International Publishing filed the lawsuit. They are seeking at least $1.2 million.

Monster is in the process of appealing the judgement in the Beastie Boys’ case.


Nina Ulloa covers breaking news, tech, and more. Follow her on Twitter: @nine_u

7 Responses

  1. Remi Swierczek

    UMG is a very large an confused organization:
    On some fronts they’re chasing mosquitos – as described above.
    On other fronts they participate in creation suicidal activities like Spotify or VEVO.

    Last they hope that Apple or Google steamroller will bring solution and they will just tap in with royalty stream to this SOLUTION.

    Well, the only logical solutions is introduction of new fair use act for music to become merchandise again.

    Next day all of Radio and streaming can become a music store. $100B music industry by 2020 guarantee with total happiness to old dogs and new nerds!

    • hippydog

      How to fix the music biz

      1.) Stop asking the venues to pay when music plays. Start asking the people who are playing the music in public to pay.. Small distinction I know.. but important.

      2.) Expand the powers of the PROS (Performance Rights Organization), & the Collectives.. Basically, for anything broadcast (Venue, TV, Radio, Streaming, Websites, podcasts, yada yada).. ANYTHING.. It goes thru the PRO’s … The PRO’s then pay the artist/label..

      3.) How do they track who should get paid? ANYONE who wants a license (one off licence for a specific song, or a blanket yearly licence, it doesn’t matter)… Must provide a list of what was played and for how many people, and then pay on the agreed amount (depending on the circumstances)

      • Willis

        No fee for public performance license? Cmon, get real. That music creates an ambiance and is part of what makes people come to a venue and spend money. There should be a fee for helping a business make money? It sounds like you may need more education on how things work in the “music biz.”

        • Hippydog

          maybe try rereading what I wrote?
          no where did I say free or no fee’s..
          I said change who gets the license and pays the fees..

          • Zilch

            I’m going to go out on a huge limb here and say Hippydog runs or ran a venue rather than being a musician or DJ.
            Hey…here’s an idea…why the should venue have to provide a professional level sound system or technician either ( hahaha…how often is that really the case)? Make the musicians and DJs provide that as well. Along with putting all the real work into promotion ( wait, they are already expected to do that most of the time… ). Ticketing? Many venues con the performers into handling many of the aspects of that that too. Meanwhile, we all know that the real money comes not from how much people are willing to spend to get in the door…but how much they will spend at the bar once there. And high quality performers are what keep them there spending money all night rather than ditching out to another spot.
            There is a reason why bars hire musicians and DJs…because they bring people in. If a venue doesn’t want to invest in music…well, lets see how well they do without it.

  2. Name2

    1) This isn’t about public performance. It’s about sync rights.

    99) There’s NO WAY Yauch would have signed on to peddle an “energy drink”.