GUILTY: MURRAY TRIAL UPDATE
So, I don't think anyone was surprised by this one really, Dr Conrad Murray - the medic caring for Michael Jackson on the day he died - was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter yesterday after a jury decided in just two days that his negligence caused the pop star's death.

The verdict brings to an end a six week trial, the majority of which was taken up by the prosecution's arguments, during which they presented various experts who criticised Murray for administering the drug propofol - which ultimately killed Jackson - in a non-hospital environment, and for failing to properly monitor his patient after doing so. Questions were also asked as to why it took Murray half an hour to call paramedics, suggesting the doctor had a guilty conscience and used that time to cover his tracks and hide evidence.

Despite presenting other patients to talk about Murray's caring nature, and one expert who claimed the evidence suggested Jackson self-administered the fatal shot of propofol, the defence failed to tackle some key questions posed by the prosecution - why had the doctor ever agreed to administer a surgical anaesthetic in a domestic environment with no monitoring equipment, why had he left his patient unattended with the drug in his system and next to his bed, and why had he taken so long to call paramedics? All three of those actions, the prosecution successfully argued, constituted gross negligence, enough to secure a conviction for involuntary manslaughter.

As the verdict was read out in court - a longer process than normal as Judge Michael Pastor asked each juror individually to confirm they agreed with the ruling - Murray sat solemnly without speaking or showing any real emotion. It was his chief lawyer, Ed Chernoff, who looked most distressed by the ruling, though he can't really have been that surprised.

The defence were always fighting an uphill battle. Their initial strategy seemed to be to pursue a 'big picture defence' summarised in Chernoff's conclusion by the line "Dr Murray was just a little fish in a big, dirty pond". In Chernoff's mind Jackson had become dependent on various prescription drugs to relieve pain, anxiety and insomnia, and he had been securing those drugs from various sources for months maybe years. Regular use of - and possible dependency on - those medications, meant Jackson was playing with fire, and it was inevitable that at some point he'd consume the right combination of those drugs to threaten his life.

Murray entered the scene late in the day, the defence would argue, inheriting a patient reliant on a dangerous combination of medications, and working for a client - AEG Live - who demanded the singer be fit enough to rehearse for a gruelling fifty night residency in London. Murray was desperately trying to wean Jackson off these drugs, they would add, but was doing so in tricky circumstances: Jackson was too busy to go cold turkey for a month, plus he had access to some of the drugs on which he had become dependent from other sources.

Following this argument to its conclusion, it was Murray's attempts to wean his patient off propofol, ie by giving him a smaller shot than usual, that led to Jackson's accidental death - when the singer regained consciousness sooner than normal while the doctor was out of the room and helped himself to another shot of the dangerous drug.

There were two key problems to this defence.

Firstly, Judge Michael Pastor banned most of it from being presented in court. For him much of the background was a distraction from the key question, what happened in the hours immediately before and after Jackson's demise. Given only drugs provided by Murray were found in Jackson's system after his death, a long discussion about the singer's other and past medical treatments would be irrelevant, and an unfair invasion on the deceased's privacy.

Secondly, even if you believed that Jackson had become dependent on various prescription drugs and had access to them from various sources before hiring Murray, and even if you accept that the defendant was trying to wean his patient off these drugs, and that, unbeknownst to the doctor, Jackson was responding by topping up his drug supply himself, it doesn't alter the fact that to administer propofol in a domestic environment, to fail to monitor his patient, to leave Jackson with access to the drug, and to not call paramedics immediately on discovering the singer had stopped breathing were all acts of negligence.

That said, if you accept the defence's full argument there is a subtle point that may not affect the doctor's legal liability for Jackson's demise, but which might ease his conscience. In Chernoff's mind the chances of Jackson dying from an overdose of prescription drugs were always high with or without Murray as his personal doctor, and even if his client had never met the singer by chance in Las Vegas one day, the late king of pop may have died by consuming the perfect storm of prescription drugs one day anyway, eventually.

Though it seems certain neither the Jackson family nor the singer's always loyal fanbase would accept that argument, for them Murray is and will remain the doctor whose negligence caused the death of their son, brother or hero. Many of the singer's more loyal fans had gathered outside the courthouse in LA waiting for a verdict yesterday, and they cheered when the word 'guilty' was delivered.

Despite Chernoff's protestations, at the request of the prosecution Murray was remanded in custody yesterday, and will now await sentencing on 29 Nov. He faces up to four years in prison, though with no previous criminal record many expect him to get away with less, and given LA's overcrowded jails some or all of that may be served under house arrest. Perhaps more devastatingly for Murray, he is likely to lose his medical licences - he currently has the right to practice in both Texas and Nevada - depriving him of income just as he faces one, maybe two, and possibly three civil lawsuits in relation to his role in Jackson's death.

And so the case rests. See you back here later this month for the sentencing and subsequent civil cases.

back to top

MORRISSEY FAN SITE PUBLISHES STATEMENT ON NME LIBEL DISPUTE
Following last month's news that Morrissey's libel action against the NME would be allowed to continue, a statement outlining the singer's claims against the music weekly was posted on the True To You fan site this weekend. Although it's not clear exactly who issued the statement, it seems to come from an official source.

In it, the singer's various claims in relation to the case are outlined. At the heart of the action, of course, is the allegation that the NME's then editor Conor McNicholas twisted an interview with the singer written by journalist Tim Jonze so that Morrissey's remarks, especially about immigration into the UK and its impact on British identity, seemed more controversial and, arguably, racist in tone.

Although the NME's relationship with Morrissey had been rocky since the early 1990s, the statement implies that McNicholas had a personal grievance with the singer because - concurrently with Jonze's interview being arranged - he had refused an invitation to accept a God-like Genius prize at that year's NME Awards.

When, shortly afterwards, McNicholas allegedly reworked the magazine's yet-to-be-published interview with the singer - the statement claims - Jonze, who had originally told Morrissey's manager how pleased he was with the piece, got back in touch to tell the singer's camp he was angry about edits that had been made and that he wanted to distance himself from the final version.

Quite what was said between Jonze and then Morrissey manager Merck Mercuriadis during this time will presumably be considered if and when this case comes to court, though, as the True To You statement admits, Jonze, now working for The Guardian, is backing the NME's argument in this case, which suggests he remembers things differently.

Morrissey's statement also deals with NME publisher IPC's unsuccessful attempt to have the somewhat late in the day (the interview was published in 2007) libel action dismissed. As previously reported, one of the arguments put forward by IPC's lawyers was that it would be unfair to expect McNicholas, Jonze and current NME editor Krissi Murison-Hodge (Dep Ed at the time) to remember conversations and editorial decisions had and made over four years ago. That argument was rejected by judge Michael Tugendhat.

On that argument, the True To You statement says: "The NME's lawyers argued that it would be unreasonable to expect them [McNicholas, Jonze and Murison-Hodge] to remember the events of 2007, yet they went on to stress that if the case went to trial, they would wish to cross-examine Morrissey on events leading back not three, but nineteen years, to 1992, when the NME aggressively ran an 'is Morrissey racist?' campaign".

Other claims made in the statement include that IPC would have pursued the singer for over £100,000 in legal costs had the publisher been successful in its attempt to have the case dismissed, and also that when the dispute over the interview first arose shortly after publication McNicholas told the Love Music Hate Racism campaign that if it supported Morrissey in the fall out he'd not give the organisation any more editorial support.

Assuming the statement comes from someone inside the Morrissey camp, it's not 100% clear what they hope to achieve by publishing the singer's claims, though the tone suggests that the singer is still in a fighting mood on this dispute, possibly suggesting an out of court settlement is unlikely, and an eventful court hearing will follow in due course.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------

ANOTHER TENENBAUM APPEAL
So, the Tenenbaum case continues. Quick recap. Joel Tenenbaum. Student. Does some naughty file-sharing of unlicensed content. Sued by Recording Industry Association Of America. Chooses not to settle out of court. Goes to court. Bullish legal rep Charles Nesson presents pretty lacklustre defence. Tenenbaum found guilty of copyright infringement. Ordered to pay $675,000 in damages. Can't pay, won't pay. Judge cuts damages to $67,500 on constitutional grounds. Appeals court says if damages to be cut different legal process required, reinstates $675,000 damages.

And so we're up to date. Legal reps for the famous file-sharer have requested another appeal, and this time they want a hearing 'en banc', which means all the appeals court's judges would hear the case, rather than the usual panel of three. Constitutional matters remain Nesson's focus, even though Judge Nancy Gertner's use of constitutional rights to revise the level of damages Tenenbaum should pay was previously rejected by appeals judges.

This time Nesson will argue that his client's first trial was unconstitutional because the judge instructed the jury that they could award damages as high as $4,500,000 (the limit set by US copyright law for the number of copyrights infringed in this case), but then later admitted herself such high damages were unconstitutional. Therefore, Nesson's argument goes, the judge incorrectly advised the jury and rendered the ruling counter to the US constitution. Or something like that.

According to TorrentFreak Nesson's legal papers, filed with the court last week, say: "It is unconstitutional to instruct a jury that it can return an unconstitutionally excessive award. To instruct the jury that it may ascribe an award in a range of up to $4,500,000 against a non-commercial copyright infringer is punitive, excessive, not authorised by statute, and a denial of due process".

The petition continues: "The defendant has challenged as unconstitutional the use of federal law and process to threaten catastrophic fines against the generation of kids who were downloading and sharing music peer-to-peer. The massive campaign of lawsuits initiated by the recording industry against people who copied music for personal use and never sold or considered selling it in any commercial way was entirely unprecedented".

It remains to be seen if the appeals court will grant Tenenbaum another appeal hearing en banc, and if so what the outcome of such a hearing would be, slashed damages, a new trial or, presumably Nesson still hopes, an overturning of the judgement against his client?

back to top

--------------------------------------------------

MCGEE VOWS TO SUE NEWS INTERNATIONAL OVER HACKING
Alan McGee has revealed in his Huffington Post blog that he has been identified as one of the ever-growing number of celebrities and public figures possibly targeted by the good old News Of The World in its campaign of phone hacking.

The former Creation Records boss wrote: "I recently returned to Wales after a trip to London and as I stepped foot through the door, I was greeted with a letter from the Metropolitan Police in London. It turns out that my name has popped up in the News Of The World phone hacking case and they are investigating as I type. In truth, I would have been gutted to think I wasn't worth at least a little hack! Imagine being deemed by the people at News Of The World as not being in the top 8000 most interesting people?"

He continued: "Joking aside, if the police confirm that I have indeed been hacked, and even though this will have been years ago, I will still sue. I couldn't abide NOTW, so I won't be losing sleep in suing them. The joke to me is that in the period they are talking about, whoever had the pleasure to get into my voicemail would have just been faced with hour-long Courtney Love rambles from LA about her new songs at 5am UK time. I hope they enjoyed their hack there (if obviously it happened) and I pity them having to listen to all that madness..."

Read the full blog post here: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alan/phone-hacking-news-of-the-world-now-im-involved_b_1078860.html

back to top

--------------------------------------------------

BIEBER ACCUSER WELCOMES PATERNITY TEST COMMITMENT
Lawyers representing Justin Bieber's toilet sex alleger Mariah Yeater have welcomed news that the popster has said he will take a paternity test as soon as he returns to the US.

As previously reported, Bieber's people said this weekend that the pop teen would take the test to disprove once and for all the allegations made against him last week - ie that he had a brief sexual liaison with Yeater backstage at LA's Staple's Center and that she became pregnant as a result.

The initial legal action filed by Yeater's people requested a court order forcing the pop star to take a paternity test, but that order now won't be required. On hearing that Bieber planned to have a DNA test later this month, Yeater's attorneys Matt Pare and Lance Rogers told the New York Post: "We are encouraged that Justin Bieber will voluntarily take the paternity test. That is the only way to definitively determine who the father is. The paternity suit was filed in good faith, and it will continue".

Of course if the paternity test is negative, backing up Bieber's claim that he has never even met Yeater, then the accuser faces a defamation lawsuit. Nevertheless, she was sticking to her story when interviewed by US TV show 'The Insider' this week. Again she alleged she met the pop star backstage after an LA concert, that he asked "would you mind if we go somewhere to be alone", that he was "sweet and cute" until they had some privacy, in a bathroom, when he became "more aggressive" and said "I want to fuck you". She again claimed that she asked Bieber to use a condom but that the pop teen refused.

As previously reported, Bieber told 'Today' last week that Yeater's claims, as well as being untrue, were also flawed, because he never stayed at venues after concerts were over. And yesterday US media were quoting a security guard who worked for the pop star as backing up those claims, saying Bieber was with friends and family in a dressing room backstage before and immediately after the show in question, and that he himself walked the star to his car shortly after the concert was over.

back to top

LAVIGNE AND BOYFRIEND CAUGHT UP IN BRAWL
Avril Lavigne's boyfriend Brody Jenner ended up with a large gash on his face after being hit with a bottle at the weekend. Initial reports were that Jenner had been involved in a bar brawl, though later it emerged that he had been attempting to prevent another woman from attacking Lavigne.

Lavigne later tweeted: "I don't fight. I don't believe in it. To clear things up I got attacked by five people last night out of nowhere. Not cool. My face is fucked, as in black eye, bloody nose, hair ripped out, scratches, bruises and cuts. So not OK to be abusive to others. Violence is NEVER the answer".

Jenner added: "Interesting Saturday night... Just got of the hospital with a new scar on my face".

The incident reportedly took place at around 1am on Sunday morning outside the Roosevelt Hotel in LA. According to reports, no charges have been brought against anyone involved thus far.

back to top

BOWIE LOOKING FOR NEW LABEL PARTNER
David Bowie is currently shopping around for a new deal to administrate the rights in his back catalogue recordings, according to the FT. EMI currently controls Bowie's output from 1969 to 1990, which includes all of his seminal work, but that deal is up for renewal at the start of next year and he is seemingly in talks with both Sony and Universal about switching allegiances.

Quite what impact that would have on EMI in terms of revenue isn't clear, but it possibly has more significance from a PR point of view, in that it is another veteran British artist ending his relationship with the British music major. Though, of course, by January the EMI labels might be owned by Universal anyway, so it's probably not as damaging now as it would have been two years ago.

Bowie hasn't released an album since 2003's 'Reality' (through his own label Iso in conjunction with Sony/Columbia), but tweeted last week: "Just when I wanted to call it quits there goes Lou Reed inspiring the hell out of me! Back into the studio we go! ([in] January.) Great to be working with Lou again".

back to top

FEIST DETAILS 2012 TOUR
Having played songs from her excellent new album 'Metals' to a sold-out crowd at the London Palladium last month, Feist has announced she's to cap off a 2012 European tour with a trio of great British dates.

They are as follows:

25 Mar: London, Royal Albert Hall
26 Mar: Manchester, Apollo
27 Mar: Glasgow, Royal Concert Hall

back to top

--------------------------------------------------

NEW NNEKA VIDEO AND LONDON DATE
Neo-soul songstress Nneka, who hails from Nigeria by way of Germany, has just debuted the animated accompanying video to new song 'Stay'. The track marks the third single taken from her forthcoming album, 'Soul Is Heavy', which is expected out early next year. You can view the video below, and you can catch Nneka live later this month when she plays a single UK date at London's Dingwalls on 30 Nov.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wnka-gqQGA

back to top

-------------------------------------------------

SPOTIFY ANNOUNCES SERIES OF GIGS
Spotify has announced that it will be promoting a new series of four gigs in association with Rockfeedback Concerts and The Guardian, under the name Spotify Live. The first takes place this Friday at The Lexington, and will feature performances from Benjamin Francis Leftwich and Marques Toliver.

The events will be free, with entry granted on a first come first served basis. However, Spotify Premium subscribers who fancy going can win guestlist places by emailing [email protected] and answering one simple question by midnight on Wednesday.

Recordings of the events will also be made available on Spotify afterwards, and artists involved will be posting their own playlists.

back to top

ALEX JAMES APOLOGISES FOR FESTIVAL FAILURE
Blur's Alex James has sent a personal apology to creditors of a festival held on his farm in Oxfordshire, after the promoter Big Wheel Promotions went into administration.

As previously reported, James hosted one of two Harvest festivals on his farm back in September. Telly presenter and real life farmer Jimmy Doherty held a sister event on his farm in Suffolk. The company behind the two events disappeared off the radar late last month, with ticket sales for announced 2012 events going offline, and it subsequently materialised that Big Wheel had gone into administration. Among the unpaid creditors was a primary school near James' farm which organised for some local talent to appear at the event, for which it is still owed £7000.

In a letter to over 100 creditors, including artists, stall holders and the previously mentioned primary school, James wrote: "I am appalled by Big Wheel's financial management of the festival held at my farm, which has left many out of pocket. Please be aware that I have no relationship with Big Wheel, beyond allowing them to stage the Harvest Festival at my farm and - regrettably - to use my name to stage the event. At no stage was there ever any indication that they would be unable to meet their costs. The news has come as a complete bolt from the blue".

back to top

-------------------------------------------------

GREEN MAN DIRECTOR TAKES FULL OWNERSHIP OF EVENT
Green Man festival Managing Director Fiona Stewart has taken complete ownership of the annual event, buying out the festival's other shareholders, founders Danny and Jo Hagan. The ownership change is unlikely to have any noticeable impact on the festival itself, which has been led by former Big Chill manager Stewart since 2006.

Stewart told CMU: "Creatively and organisationally, nothing has changed, the same team who have been organising Green Man for many years are still going to be running it. Green Man has a life of its own now, and remains the fiercely independent, non-corporate and ethically run festival that we all know and love".

She added: "All of us at Green Man would like to wish the Danny and Jo the very best of luck for the future. Green Man 2011 was our best festival yet, and we can't wait to start announcing details of what promises to be an absolutely amazing celebration for the tenth annual Green Man in Wales next August. Watch this space!"

back to top

BEST BUY CONFIRMS CLOSURE OF UK STORES
Best Buy is indeed retreating from the UK, shutting down its chain of eleven stores, all of which were only opened in the last nineteen months.

Following reports the Best Buy UK chain would close in the Sunday Times this weekend, the firm's UK parent company Carphone Warehouse confirmed the closures yesterday, saying that the eleven stores had performed "exceptionally at the level of customer satisfaction, but they do not have the national reach to achieve scale and brand economies". It is hoped many of the chain's 1000 UK employees can be redeployed elsewhere within the Carphone Warehouse group.

Ambitious plans to expand the US consumer electronics, CD and DVD seller across Europe were part of a multi-layered partnership between the American Best Buy company and Carphone Warehouse in 2008, which also saw the two firms collaborate on an American mobile venture which Best Buy will now take complete ownership of, ensuring Carphone Warehouse's shareholders a nice pay day.

The retreat from Europe is another sign that Best Buy is returning its focus on the US market. As previously reported, the firm recently sold its global digital music venture Napster to rival Rhapsody.

back to top

BT INVESTIGATING MUSIC SERVICE OPTIONS
BT is talking to the majors about launching a music service, according to the Mail On Sunday. It's thought that the tel co wants to offer its internet customers its own music platform rather than bundling in an existing music service with its net packages, as Virgin is doing with Spotify and Orange with Deezer. Think about that for a moment, a proprietary BT music service, just imagine how awful that will probably be.

Of course BT, as with most ISPs and mobile firms, has dabbled with the idea of bundling music with its internet services for years, though the Mail says the tel co giant is now more proactively talking to the music companies about such a thing.

As reported yesterday, record label trade body the BPI is putting pressure on BT to block access to file-sharing websites such as The Pirate Bay - using the precedent set in this year's Newzbin court case as legal grounds for why they should comply with that request - and it's possible BT could use that as a negotiating tactic, ie do a deal with us on BT-tunes and we'll voluntarily block file-sharing enabling services rather than you having to get an injunction for each and every separate infringing site.

The Mail also quotes the CEO of BT's retail arm Gavin Patterson as saying his company would forego making any profit on a music platform in the short term if it helps secures deals, but the labels would have to agree to a "business model that makes sense", which probably means paying royalties somewhat less than those usually demanded by the labels from digital start ups.

BT will dangle its six million customers as a negotiating tactic too; this is a digital music service that could be truly mainstream. Though ISPs frequently talk about how they "have the good customer relationships" when trying to strike up more favourable deals with content owners, which ignores the fact many people choose their ISP on price alone (or in BT's case technical convenience), have little loyalty towards the net firm (often they actively dislike their net supplier because of terrible customer service experiences), and routinely by-pass any services provided by the net company other than actual access to the web.

And if Virgin Media - an ISP which enjoys a good relationship with the music industry - couldn't get a proprietary music service off the ground can BT, a long term adversary of the record companies which is currently trying to have the copyright section of the Digital Economy Act, which the BPI lobbied to hard to secure, overturned in court?

Still, striking up a partnership with BT would win a big ally in the net sector which could help overcome the need for pursuing numerous costly web-blocking injunctions while also pleasing the record label's friends in government, who have long wanted more label/ISP collaboration on legal music services. So an interesting one to watch. Even if BT-tunes would almost certainly be awful and die a death within two years.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------

GOOGLE ADDS PAGES TO PLUS
So, Google has opened up its social network to things as well as individuals, so brands, businesses, media, labels, bands, promoters and people with a public profile can now participate. Should they want to. This means Google+ is now open to artists interested in connecting with fans via the fledgling social network as well as Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud and YouTube (and MySpace still?). Because you can never have too many social media profiles to manage.

It remains to be seen if Google, which has never really succeeded in the social networking space, can steal ground from its more established rivals in persuading brands and celebrities to join their party, something which might persuade more people to sign up to the new network and, perhaps more importantly, persuade those already signed up to login on something nearing a semi-regular basis.

It's probably too soon to say whether Google+ pages will ultimately offer any functionality that will give them a USP over rival music-friendly social networks, though they may gain ground thanks to the power of the Google search engine. It's not clear if Google+ pages will be given any priority by the main Google search service in the future - doing so might result in claims of anti-competitive activity by rivals - though users will be able to use the main Google search platform to navigate the web giant's social networking pages by adding a + at the start of a search query, which might be enough to it an edge.

So people, what do you think? Will you be setting up a Google+ page for your artists/label/company/event this afternoon?

back to top

--------------------------------------------------

UNIVERSAL DIGITAL CHIEF STICKS UP FOR SPOTIFY
So, Universal Music's digital chief Rob Wells has given an interesting interview with Topspin CEO Ian Rogers, which we recommend you go and watch. Though it is just under an hour long, so if you can't be bothered, well, here's the thing most people have honed in, his viewpoint on Spotify.

He says he likes the Swedish streaming music service - both the company itself and its subscription-based freemium-promoted business model - and that he doesn't buy the argument some have been putting around of late that big artists may lose record sales by making their new albums available to Spotify users.

Says Rob: "I'm a fan of [Spotify's] model. I'm not just a fan of that company - although they're all great guys, they've got great tech, great engineering, and the Facebook integration is amazing - but I'm a fan of that model. Why? Because that's clearly what consumers - some consumers - want. There's a massive debate raging throughout the whole of the industry [at the moment] about does [having new music on Spotify] cannibalise [record sales income]. But what if it's incremental revenue and not cannibalistic revenue? That's additional money".

With that in mind, what does he make of the likes of EMI-signed Coldplay choosing not to put their new album on Spotify? He continues: "I do find it quite irritating when bands decide they don't want to [use Spotify]. As an industry we should be showing some sort of solidarity, because there is a wave of customers - the demographic on these services is between sixteen and 22-24 - and the disappointing thing about a band like Coldplay doing this, is that consumers who are on these services are not going to turn away and buy that album on iTunes. [So] they may miss out [on those customers]".

You can see the full interview here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbAT9Ap9EVs

back to top

LANG THINKS LESBIAN-LOOKING JUSTIN IS A HOTTIE
After what must have been a stressful week for Justin Bieber, at least he can sleep soundly at night knowing kd lang think's he's hot. Though only because he looks like a lesbian.

Lang was asked for her opinions on her fellow Canadian's looks during a random question spot on Aussie TV show 'Rove LA'. Asked "Justin Bieber, hot or not" the singer responded after only a few seconds consideration: "Well, he looks just a like lesbian, so I am going to say hot as shit".

Presumably Lang had this classic website in mind when answering her question:
lesbianswholooklikejustinbieber.tumblr.com

back to top