UNIVERSAL SUES GROOVESHARK AGAIN, WITH EVIDENCE SENIOR GROOVESHARKERS THEMSELVES UPLOAD
Universal Music is suing Grooveshark. Yes, again. And this time the legal complaint alleges that staff employed by the controversial streaming service's parent company Escape Media Group have themselves posted over 100,000 unlicensed tracks to the Grooveshark website, and that therefore the company cannot hide behind the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

It's no secret that Universal, more than any other player in the music industry, hates Grooveshark, the browser-based audio streaming service, operating from the US but available worldwide, that allows users to contribute their own music collections to a central library, making it one of the most comprehensive digital music catalogues on the net, even if the majority of the rights owners whose music appears haven't licensed the service and therefore earn no royalties.

EMI was the first to sue Grooveshark when the streaming service first began to gain popularity among American teens and college students, but the label subsequently reached an out of court settlement and licensing deal with the digital firm. Some indies have also licensed the service, getting royalties from advertising and subscription revenue. But some key rights owners - including the biggest of them all, Universal Music - have chosen not to licence Grooveshark. However, because of the user-upload option, the company's music frequently appears in the streaming service's catalogues.

Grooveshark management claim that America's Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects them from liability for copyright infringement, even if they frequently host unlicensed music, because they operate a takedown system as set out in the DMCA, so that if a rights owner complains that their music is on the Grooveshark platform without licence, the digital firm will remove it.

The same 'safe-harbour' clause in the DMCA protects services like YouTube from liability for copyright infringement, though YouTube has many more content licenses in place, and operates a much more sophisticated take-down system. Nevertheless, Team Grooveshark frequently roll out the line "if YouTube is legal, then so are we".

As previously reported, an increasing number of rights owners are losing patience with the takedown system element of the DMCA. Some feel the Act, or rather how it has been interpreted in the courts, puts far too little onus on the websites getting safe-harbour protection, enabling them to run slapdash takedown systems, perhaps deliberately, so that their sites can boast premium (unlicensed) content more of the time.

Others complain that the DMCA doesn't accommodate the fact that, on any site with user-upload, as soon as unlicensed content is taken down under a DMCA order, another copy of the same content is re-uploaded, resulting in a costly and time consuming 24/7 cat and mouse chase for rights owners.

YouTube has dealt with this problem to an extent by having filters that in theory spot and block previously taken down content if someone attempts to re-upload it. But the ruling in the landmark Viacom v YouTube case - based on the video-sharing site's early years in operation - suggested there was no obligation on user-upload sites to operate such a filter system, despite various court rulings in the file-sharing domain saying that the makers of P2P software are liable for infringement if they fail to incorporate effective content filters on their networks.

Universal has been keen to sue Grooveshark for some time, insiders saying there is no mood to reach an out of court settlement EMI style, and that the mega major would rather just see the rebellious digital music start up from Florida sued out of business. However, it's thought the major's lawyers fear that a straight copyright infringement lawsuit might fail because, to be fair to the Groovesharkers, the precedent set in the handful of DMCA safe-harbour cases that have been through the courts to date does sort of back up their claim that they are protected from liability, however rubbish their take-down efforts may be.

To that end Universal initially sued last year in the New York courts over tracks from its pre-1972 catalogue that appear on the Grooveshark platform without licence. It soon emerged that the reason the major was suing for such a specific section of its catalogue was down to a legal technicality - copyright works from before 1972 were protected in the US under state law, not federal law, so perhaps, the music firm's legal beagles postulated, the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and its safe-harbour clauses, would not apply. Eat that Groovesharkers.

Except, a side ruling in the recent EMI v MP3tunes.com case, where the same argument was used regarding the DMCA being limited to post-1972 works, a judge said such a theory was ridiculous, and that DMCA safe harbours applied oblivious of which bit of law was providing copyright protection.

So, Universal's efforts to sue were looking wobbly. Except, according to CNet, as part of that legal action Grooveshark were forced to hand over a database which records user uploads, and it is seemingly by analysing that data that Universal's legal reps have discovered what they believe is evidence key execs at the digital company uploaded music to the service's platform themselves. Such actions constitute more straight forward copyright infringement, and the DMCA safe-harbour clause would unlikely apply.

Universal's new lawsuit claims that the business records of Escape Media Group: "establish unequivocally that the sound recordings illegally copied by Escape's executives and employees, include thousands of well known sound recordings owned by UMG". The legal papers add that Universal's has evidence that three key Groovesharkers, Sam Tarantino, Paul Geller and Ben Westermann-Clark uploaded respectively 1791, 3452 and 4600 unlicensed songs.

Universal's lawsuit also notes a recent article on Digital Music News about the problems King Crimson guitarist Robert Fripp had in trying to get his music removed from Grooveshark. Of most import is an anonymous post in the comment section of that article purporting to come from someone working for Grooveshark, who claims staff there are routinely instructed to upload music to the streaming service's platform, adding that management are aware of Fripp's takedown requests, but are ignoring them because they believe he hasn't the resources to sue.

The commenter adds: "Why am I disclosing all this? Well, I have been here a while and I don't like the attitude that the administration has acquired against the artists. They are the enemy. They are the threat. The things that are said internally about them would make you very very angry. Interns are promised getting a foot in the music industry, only to hear these people cursing and bad mouthing the whole industry all day long".

Of course it's not known if that comment comes from a real Grooveshark insider, however if the evidence that senior execs have themselves been uploading unlicensed music is indisputable, then Universal arguably has a much stronger case against the streaming platform this time around. It's thought that Universal will sue for the full statutory damages for each track infringed, which is $150,000 per track. So, if there really are thousands of Universal tracks among those staff members uploaded (which isn't unlikely given the major's market share), then, if the lawsuit were successful, the damages could be sky high, enough, perhaps, to achieve Objective Number 1, to sue Grooveshark out of business.

The aforementioned Geller, who generally speaks for Grooveshark these days, told CNet he was yet to see the legal action so could not yet comment.

back to top

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

RHYTHMIX BATTLE OVER, SYCO MAKE DONATION
The battle between the Rhythmix charity and the 'X-Factor' machine is seemingly at an end, after the flagging TV enterprise pledged to make a donation to the charitable organisation to help cover legal costs run up during the Rhythmix name dispute.

As much previously reported, the Rhythmix charity approached 'X' chiefs after a girl group created on the show chose to perform using their name. Although the Rhythmix charity only owned the trademark in that word in the educational space, it works on music education projects, and feared that if 'X' bosses trademarked the word in the music domain it would hinder their fund-raising efforts.

'X' chiefs were initially unhelpful, passing the matter onto their lawyers and basically saying "see you in court", forcing the Rhythmix charity to take expensive legal advice. But eventually, after an online campaign and two open letters to Simon Cowell by the charity's CEO Mark Davyd, TV chiefs announced their girl group would change its name to Little Mix and, after another push, confirmed they were withdrawing their trademark application for the name.

But, because of the way they initially responded, by this point Rhythmix had legal bills of £8000. Davyd called for 'X' producers to contribute towards those costs, so that cost of the legal battle wouldn't stop his organisation's work with disadvantaged young people. With the 'X' team again slow to respond, a PR firm called Unity donated its time to the charity and launched an online campaign urging those who usually vote in the telly talent contest using ITV's premium phone lines to instead call a special premium number that would donate a pound to the Rhythmix charity.

But on Friday the charity was able to call that campaign to a close, after Simon Cowell's Syco company made a contribution to the organisation. In a statement Rhythmix said it wishes "Little Mix the best in their endeavours on the 'X Factor' and would like to thank Syco for their donation and for withdrawing their trademark application. [We would also] like to thank all the members of the public who supported the charity in seeking to resolve this matter, and to thank Unity PR".

Davyd added: "We are very pleased this has been brought to an amicable conclusion. These are difficult times for charities and other third sector organisations, and we are very pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement with Syco to put this matter behind us".

back to top

NOEL RESPONDS TO LIAM'S DEFAMATION LAWSUIT
When Noel Gallagher earlier this year accused brother Liam of bailing on an Oasis booking at the 2009 V Festival because he was hungover, the accused sibling responded by suing for defamation. But Noel then subsequently backtracked somewhat on his claims, and it was thought Liam had withdrawn his lawsuit as a result.

But seemingly not, because the Mirror has got its hands on Noel Gallagher's countersuit, which - if the photocopies published by the tabloid are to be believed - were submitted to court at the start of this month. The tab adds that the legal papers pull no punches in dissing Liam, outlining various incidents over the years where Team Noel claim the Oasis frontman acted unreasonably.

The court document admits that Liam did - as he claims - have laryngitis on the day of the 2009 V Festival show, and that that was ultimately the reason the band didn't play. But, Noel claims, his brother was drinking and smoking to 1am the previous night following Oasis' performance at the other V Festival site, and that this "could have harmed his throat further or held back his recovery". The legal paper then goes on to outline other times Liam cancelled live shows for allegedly unreasonable reasons, including one occasion where an entire US tour was axed so the frontman could go house hunting.

The papers also deal with the other claim Noel made which Liam disputes, that Oasis ultimately split because the frontman wanted to advertise his fashion line Pretty Green in the band's tour programme. Noel admits no such advert ever appeared, and that he didn't deal directly with Liam on that issue, but says he did deal with intermediaries who were looking to use Oasis' live activity to promote his brother's fashion venture. When Noel refused, he says, his brother became even more awkward than usual, while deliberately winding him up by dedicating songs to Pretty Green employees at gigs.

Whether any of this will really get to court remains to be seen. The Mirror quotes a source as saying: "Neither shows any sign of budging. It seems to be total deadlock - and they aren't pulling any punches". I do hope it does go all the way, I mean, if anyone's going to write a play about the Noel/Liam relationship, what better than an acrimonious court case to frame it around?

back to top

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

BIEBER HAS HIS PATERNITY TEST
The Biebster has taken his DNA test, and according to the in depth research (aka Google search) I did this morning, you'd normally expect to get the results back three to ten days after the sample is taken, so the Bieber baby story should soon be resolved.

Justin Bieber, of course, is accused of fathering Mariah Yeater's baby during a brief sexual liaison back stage at the Staples Center in LA late last year. The pop star denies ever meeting Yeater, and various reports have suggested the 20 year old woman had previously wrongly accused an ex-boyfriend of being the father, and that there are text messages between her and friends asking for them to cover up past claims in a bid to help with her Bieber paternity lawsuit, with a promise of a cut of any money won from the pop star if they comply.

But Yeater maintains she has "credible evidence" that she had sex with Bieber, and has pushed for the pop star to take a DNA test to prove she's telling the truth from the start. After a few days denying Yeater's claims, Bieber agreed to take the paternity test on his return to the US, and according to his manager Scooter Braun that happened on Friday.

Once Bieber had agreed to take the test, Yeater's original lawyers withdrew the paternity lawsuit they were pursuing for the claimant, possibly fearful that if the DNA test proves their client was lying they'd be left handling a massive defamation lawsuit for a woman of limited means. Though another lawyer was still speaking for Yeater and maintaining her claims, even as the original lawsuit was withdrawn last week, insisting talks with Bieber's legal reps were ongoing.

Speaking about the DNA test, Bieber's manager told US TV show 'Extra': "[Justin] doesn't mind. He's like: 'I'm just going to go ahead [with] it and be fine'". Confirming Team Bieber still planned to sue for defamation if and when Yeater's claims are proven to be untrue, Braun added: "I think it's important to hold people accountable for their actions".

back to top

BEE GEE RECEIVES MORE HOSPITAL TREATMENT.
Bee Gee Robin Gibb was rushed to hospital again last week as he continues to deal with health problems, though he was allowed home within the day.

As previously reported, a very frail looking Gibb attended a press launch last month, shortly after a previous stint in hospital, for the record he was involved in released in aid of this month's Poppy Day Appeal.

It is thought that the singer has been suffering from abdominal problems, and speculation has begun to surface online that Gibb is battling liver cancer, though that has not been confirmed in anyway.

According to the Mirror he was rushed to hospital last Tuesday, but was allowed to return home after just five hours in the medical facility.

back to top

IDOL JUDGE TO MANAGER CAREY
'American Idol' judge Randy Jackson is set to become Mariah Carey's new manager, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Jackson is a long term friend of the singer, and has produced some of her singles and albums, but is now set to take on responsibility for her whole career, it seems.

back to top

DAPPY WORKING WITH BRIAN MAY
Yeah, there's an unlikely collaboration for you. Dappy and Brian May are working on a single together. Actually, I think they've already recorded it. Why or what for I don't know, but it seems May is a fan.

Dappy told The Mirror: "He said I deserve an award - I couldn't believe it! So I had to hit him up to work with me. I'm flying to LA in the morning to work on the video with him".

back to top

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

A DOZEN WINEHOUSE SONGS WILL REMAIN PRIVATE
There are at least a dozen more unfinished Amy Winehouse songs that won't be released, according to Island Records' Darcus Beese.

As previously reported, the Universal division will next month release a collection of Winehouse songs, including demos, covers and two previously unreleased tracks. But Beese has admitted to Music Week that the record company is sitting on at least another dozen tracks which, he says, are of a high quality, but won't be released because Winehouse didn't want them to be aired in public.

Meanwhile Winehouse collaborator Salaam Remi, one of the producers who has compiled the new record, says that he feels that, when he played the album to the late singer's family, it helped them better deal with her sudden passing.

Remi told Billboard family members expressed concerns about listening to the posthumous album, fearing it would be too upsetting, but added: "As the songs were playing they just started smiling and said: 'She wrote this? When did she do this? What happened?'"

He added: "I felt they spent so much time chasing her around, they didn't realise how gifted and talented Amy was. Not just when she passed at 27 but at eighteen when I first met her. It made everyone that knew her feel so much better about her passing, and her life as well. This record is about balancing out all of the bull in things that may have just been uncool, and saying 'this person existed'".

back to top

RADIOHEAD TO RELEASE FROM THE BASEMENT DVD
Radiohead have announced plans to release their 'From The Basement' session on DVD this coming December.

Originally filmed for the BBC back in July, the main portion of it comprises the band's performance of their eighth album, 'The King Of Limbs', in its entirety. The overall package also includes live renditions of unreleased tracks 'The Daily Mail' and 'Staircase' and bonus take, 'Supercollider', plus a digital copy of the session and a book of live photographs.

While those who pre-order the DVD at thekingoflimbs.com will receive it in time for Christmas, the rest of us will just have to wait until January 2012, when it'll be available to buy in shops.

back to top

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

BON IVER TO RELEASE DELUXE DIGITAL ALBUM
As of 28 Nov, interested parties will be able to get their mitts on the digital-only deluxe edition of Bon Iver's second album, 'Bon Iver'. Set for release on iTunes, it will pair each track on the LP with a short film, featuring work by Bon Iver's Justin Vernon and visual artists Dan Huiting, Isaac Gale, David Jensen and JoLynn Garnes.

The press release describes it best: "The video work is meant to be consumed as a visual extension of the music, to enhance each listener's experience with one of the year's most acclaimed albums. While not music videos per se, these visual accompaniments are striking in their distinctive atmosphere, and compelling works in their own right".

So, that all sounds rather pretentious. The trailer for the ten films does look beautiful, though, like an episode of 'Frozen Planet' minus those cruel, heartless orcas.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjve7dT3Twg

back to top

ST VINCENT TO PLAY SHEPHERDS BUSH
St Vincent is poised to grace the stage at London's Shepherds Bush Empire with songs from her superlative new album, 'Strange Mercy'. Taking place on 27 Feb, it will mark her largest UK show to date. If you haven't seen it already, this session she did for 4AD is definitely worth a look.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jv4lgFrL7U

back to top

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

FRUIT BATS TO PLAY LONDON SHOW
Fruit Bats, aka Eric D Johnson, releases his new album, 'Tripper', today via Sub Pop, and you can catch him live this Friday at Hoxton Bar & Kitchen in London.

Recorded in LA, Johnson worked with Devendra Banhart producer Thom Monahan on the new record. Describing Monham's production style, Johnson said: "He would say, 'I'm going to put a reverb on your vocals that you can't even hear, but it will sound better'".

Look out for that on 'You're Too Weird', the video for which you can watch here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3fF9g2R7Bw

back to top

FESTIVAL LINE-UP UPDATE

DOWNLOAD, Donington Park, 8-10 Jun: The Prodigy join lone headliners Metallica on what's shaping up to be a strong 2012 bill for the heavy metal fest. www.downloadfestival.co.uk

back to top

INDIES UNITE FOR CHRISTMAS LABEL MARKET
The Independent Label Market is to stage its second London event of the year, thus assuring a much merrier Christmas for all those labels affected by the Sony/PIAS warehouse fire earlier this year. Domino, Big Dada, Memphis Industries and Ninja Tune will be amongst the labels represented at the event, which takes place at east London's Spitalfields Market on 10 Dec.

Says ILM founder and Angular Records chief, Joe Daniel: "We've spent the last couple of months getting back on our feet and I hope this market will be a chance for the labels to recover some of the ground lost in August and September when we had no stock. It will also be a great way to celebrate independent music in 2011 whilst wearing a silly hat and enjoying some nice mulled wine".

Hurrah! Further details here: independentlabelmarket.tumblr.com

back to top

JOHNNY VAUGHAN LEAVES CAPITAL
Johnny Vaughan is leaving Capital Radio with immediate effect after being told his million pound a year contract would not be renewed.

According to The Guardian, the breakfast show host was told by Global Radio director Richard Park that his current two year contract would not be renewed late last week, and the presenter decided to leave immediately rather than wait for the actual contract renewal date. As of this morning DJ Greg Burns will fill in with Vaughan's co-host Lisa Snowdon until a replacement can be found.

Insiders say that Capital bosses feel they need someone younger on the show, and that the parting with Vaughan, although sudden, was actually quite amicable, he agreeing it's good to leave on a high.

In 2004 Vaughan replaced Capital's long term breakfast show host Chris Tarrant, a DJ so closely aligned with the Capital Radio brand that his departure caused the share price of the then publicly listed GCap Radio Group to wobble. The new host initially lost a portion of Tarrant's listeners, allowing rivals Heart and Magic to gain ground in the hugely competitive London breakfast show market.

Then an attempt to reunite Vaughan with previous 'Big Breakfast' co-host Denise Van Outen backfired when she quit just five months in. But Vaughan slowly found his ground and started to build his audience, so that in the last year Capital could again claim to have the biggest breakfast show in London.

Confirming his departure, Vaughan said on Friday: "I have just loved doing this job, but after all these years of getting up in the middle of the night, I really think the time is right to hand over the microphone to someone else. It's been a joy waking up London every morning and a thrill to have been part of the broadcasting tapestry of this great city".

It remains to be seen who Global recruit to take over one of its most important programme slots. Meanwhile, in an interesting sideshow, one time Capital Radio DJ Steve Penk took to Twitter this weekend to diss Capital Radio for axing Vaughan, and to bad mouth his albeit temporary replacement, Burns.

Penk wrote: "Greg Burns? Has anyone ever heard this guy? As dull as they come. Capital was always about BIG personality and that big London sound. Capital have made a big mistake getting rid of Johnny. In the history of Capital FM the radio station has never been bland. But it is now".

Assuming @GregCapital is a genuine Twitter feed, which it seems to be, Burns responded, referencing that Penk now works for a radio station he also owns, Manchester's The Revolution. Burns tweeted: "Of course you have the right to your opinion. I can only try to do the show as well as [possible until the] new host arrives. Then if all else fails, and I can't get a gig anywhere, I'll buy my own tinpot fm, put myself on air, and tweet bitter messages".

On a roll, and presumably having checked out Penk's weekend schedule, Burns then added: "I'm just chuffed you took the time to tweet about me. Busy weekend, what with Rochdale's Xmas lights being switched on!".

Fun times. In other Capital news, media regulator OfCom has approved requests by Global to adjust its FM licences in Scotland and Birmingham, now broadcasting the Capital network with local shows in prime time. The aim was to allow the basic Capital format to be broadcast on both outputs, without having to fulfil specific music or programming commitments included in the original licence and relating to the stations that previously used those frequencies.

According to Radio Today, all but one of the responses to the public consultation opposed the change, but OfCom nevertheless approved the request. That said, Global had already altered its request for the Midlands so that it retained a commitment to "include programmes of specific appeal to listeners of African or Afro-Caribbean origin" in order to placate both the regulator and its complainants.

back to top

WESTLIFE LEFT SYCO BECAUSE THEY HAD TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES
Bands make all kinds of complaints about record companies, but an argument you don't hear very often is that the band had too much control. However, that seemingly is partly why Westlife jumped ship from Syco to fellow Sony Music imprint RCA earlier this year.

The group's Nicky Byrne told The Mirror: "We felt unloved because we were making albums with that particular label and we were having to make our own decisions. It makes you implode. So we thought, 'Let's get away to a new label and see what it's like there'. But when we got to the new label we were still imploding. It felt like we had done it for long enough".

"Imploding" is an interesting word to use to describe the subsequent Westlife split, which has otherwise been referred to as "amicable". Though all four members of the group did seem to simultaneously feel their time together was at an end. Kian Egan added: "Over the years, we've tried to look at all the little things that were cracking and all the little things that were going wrong, thinking maybe we could change this or that. But none of them really had anything to do with it. I think it was just a case of wear and tear".

back to top