• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

kemmler3D

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
96
Likes
347
Location
San Francisco
Judge : And did mofi inform you in any sales literature or any other promotion that you could expect future value to increase due to limited production run?
...
Judge : And what quantity did Mofi commit to limiting the production run to?


Now IANAL - but I don't think it matters in a court of law what a customer might infer from the statements of a supplier. At least in the UK, we are effectively talking about contract law (in consumer law the contract that is implicitly made as part of a transaction). And in a contract it only matters what is specifically stated. I accept that US Consumer law might be different.

I hope they don't settle out of court - it will be fascinating to see how this plays out in front of a judge.

I don't know if MoFi ever actually said "We only use analog, therefore the production runs are limited, therefore the value will go up." I am not sure if they needed to or not, for it to be relevant in court.

IANAL either but I think the standard for this sort of case in the US is whether customers would have changed their purchasing behavior if you hadn't said what you said.

They based a lot of purchases on the belief that it was all analog, when it wasn't.

So we could say there's likely some liability for MoFi there. The question is whether there are damages, and if so, how large.

On the sound quality front, the damages are obviously nothing. Nobody's listening experience was harmed and that's pretty easy to prove.

On the collectibility / rarity front, that is where I think the plaintiffs might get something. Their purchase was based on beliefs about rarity that were inherently tied to claims about the analog process. I am not sure if MoFi would have had to specifically claim anything about collectible value, to be found liable for the loss in value. I think they could be, but again not sure.

The plaintiffs on the other hand (every single class member) are a bunch of bloody idiots.

I don't know, some of those records really did go up in value, especially if you didn't play them.
 

Labjr

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
942
Likes
831
Keep in mind if MoFi tries to defend this in court and win on a technicality such as, "We never said those exact words...bah, blah, blah...", their reputation would be trash. Nobody will ever believe anything they say. What they did is very obvious. People didn't pay $125 for a digital transfer and they knew it. They paid for an analog process regardless of how it sounds.
 

Head_Unit

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
914
Likes
443
6:14 - Why not just cut the vinyl step out completely and just get the DSD file?
Because it stands for "Devil Sells Digital" (though you'll never get the Sony executives involved-who are secretly robots piloted by miniature people inside, the predecessors of the Neon Genesis Evangelion conspiracy to come in the future-to admit it).
 

Head_Unit

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
914
Likes
443
Keep in mind if MoFi tries to defend this in court and win on a technicality such as, "We never said those exact words...bah, blah, blah..."
Puts me in mind of Ozzy not playing Ozzfest when Sharon was having cancer surgery-they refused to refund anyone because the back of the tickets said lineup not guaranteed. Oh sure but gee it's called OZZFEST. Aren't those MoFi called "one step"? Or am I mixing something up?
 

tonycollinet

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
2,669
Likes
3,781
Location
UK/Cheshire
People didn't pay $125 for a digital transfer and they knew it. They paid for an analog process regardless of how it sounds.
Just one in the long list of things that makes them a bunch of idiots.

And of course MOFI'll defend it. It doesn't matter what people think they "knew", it matters what can be proven in court to form part of the contract of sale - and they'll be wiped out by a default judgement if they don't. If I were MOFI I'd offer every class member a none admission of liability, full refund for return of the product and dropping the suit. They probably wouldn't take it because they are idiots all fired up with righteous indignation.

The plaintiffs would then only be left with the meritless (IMO) future value claim and would lose** with costs awarded against them for such a meritless case.

** unless the plaintiffs have a smoking gun none of us have seen. At the moment though, it looks to me as though the only smoking gun is pointed squarely at their own collective temple.
 
Top Bottom