State Champ Radio Lawsuit
Page: 2
Pandora is firing back at a lawsuit filed by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (the MLC) that claims the company has failed to properly pay streaming royalties, calling the case a “gross overreach” based on a “legally incoherent position.”
The MLC — the group created by Congress in 2018 to collect streaming royalties — filed the lawsuit earlier this year, accusing Pandora (a unit of SiriusXM) of misclassifying the nature of its streaming service to avoid paying the kind of higher royalties owed by “interactive” platforms like Spotify.
But in its first response to the case filed on Tuesday (April 16), Pandora calls the MLC’s lawsuit a “wild overreach” that “distorts the Pandora experience” — and one filed by an entity that is not even legally empowered to bring such cases.
Trending on Billboard
“The MLC … was intended to be a neutral intermediary charged with collecting and distributing royalties under the blanket license,” Pandora writes. “It is not authorized to play judge and jury over a streaming service’s legal compliance, nor was it created … to pursue legal frolics and detours such as this one.”
Pandora’s lawyers also say the lawsuit is based on a “a legally incoherent position” that has never been raised by the music companies for whom the MLC is collecting royalties: “The MLC seems to think it knows something the entire music industry does not.”
A rep for the MLC did not immediately return a request for comment.
At the heart of the lawsuit against Pandora is the distinction between “interactive” platforms like Spotify or Apple Music, which allow users to pick their songs on demand, and “noninteractive” platforms that provide an experience more like radio. It’s a key dividing line since interactive and noninteractive services pay very different royalties under different systems.
Though Pandora offers a premium tier with on-demand functionality, it has long treated Pandora Free — the core radio-like product that fueled the company’s rise in the late 2000s — as a noninteractive service, since it largely serves users a mix of songs based on their preferences.
But in a February lawsuit, the MLC argued that Pandora Free had crossed the line into “interactive” status by offering so-called “Sponsored Premium Access” sessions, which allow users to briefly play specific songs in return for watching ads. As a result, the MLC argued that Pandora owed the same kind of royalties for Pandora Free as services like YouTube or Spotify pay.
“Pandora provides even greater interactive access and functionality than these other ad-supported interactive streaming services,” the MLC wrote. “Despite the interactive functionality of Pandora Free, Pandora has failed to report in full Pandora Free usage to The MLC.”
In Tuesday’s response, Pandora’s lawyers argued that the MLC’s lawsuit “badly distorts reality” by making a “blatant mischaracterization of Pandora’s offerings.”
In their telling, the disputed “Sponsored Premium Access” sessions are merely brief previews of the company’s on-demand tier with “strict caps” on usage — not a wholesale feature that would “transform” Pandora Free “into an interactive service like Spotify or Apple Music.”
What’s more, Pandora says that feature was explicitly negotiated with music companies, who have never once objected to it or argued that it required Pandora to “fundamentally change its approach to licensing.”
“The MLC apparently thinks it knows better than the entire music publishing industry,” Pandora wrote. “Not only is the MLC operating far outside its administrative bounds, but it is also completely wrong on the law.”
Speaking with Billboard on Tuesday, George White, senior vp of music licensing at SiriusXM and Pandora, echoed the claims made by Pandora in the legal response.
“The lawsuit is really a gross overreach, especially when you consider that Pandora is such a well-known and well-established non-interactive music streaming service,” White said. “There are no checks and balances on the MLC. We believe that’s something, as part of the MLC redesignation, that the Copyright Office really needs to consider.”
White was alluding to the Copyright Office’s ongoing “redesignation process” of the MLC — a five-year check-up required by Music Modernization Act to ensure that the organization is functioning effectively. The first-ever redesignation started in January and is set to wrap up later this year.
Global Music Rights (GMR), the boutique U.S. performance rights organization (PRO) that represents Bruce Springsteen, Bruno Mars, Prince, Drake, Pharrell Williams, the John Lennon estate, the Eagles and others, has settled its copyright infringement lawsuit against the Vermont Broadcast Association (VBA) that was filed in January. According to Global Music Rights, which was founded by […]
HipHopWired Featured Video
Russell Simmons was recently served in Bali and learned that he was the target of a defamation lawsuit from Drew Dixon, who has accused the mogul of sexual assault. Russell Simmons is asking that the lawsuit from Drew Dixon be dismissed because he never mentioned the music executive’s name in recent comments about the claims he’s facing.
Radar Online reports that Russell Simmons, 66, is angling to have Dixon’s defamation lawsuit tossed out after being served on March 5 while at the Gdas Bali Health And Wellness Resort.
From Radar Online:
Simmons has since argued that none of the “statements alleged in the Complaint are defamatory as a matter of law, because all the statements are opinion — not fact — and Plaintiff is not clearly identifiable in any of the statements” in a new court filing.
In her lawsuit, Dixon zeroed in on statements made by Simmons during a Dec. podcast interview in which he allegedly attempted to discredit rape accusations against him from six women.
Simmons was a guest on In Depth With Graham Besinger where he explained that he was never “forceful” in his relationships and that anything physical between another woman was consensual.
“If you had more foursomes than most guys at once, could someone leave and feel hurt? Could some reimagine a story out of thousands of people? Could someone want notoriety in the market where people thirst for fame, even infamous,” Simmons said.
Dixon’s legal team wrote that Simmons has, “gone on a concerted and malicious campaign to discredit Ms. Dixon and to so damage her reputation.”
Simmons maintains that he was speaking generally and not about anyone specific.
—
Photo: VALERIE MACON / Getty
Universal Music Group (UMG) is facing a lawsuit that claims a 1992 Mary J. Blige hit featured an unlicensed sample from a 1973 funk song that’s famous for being sampled in dozens of other tracks, including releases from Biggie and Tupac as well as a recent Doja Cat tune.
In a complaint filed Thursday (April 4) in Manhattan federal court, Tuff City Records accused Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) of copyright infringement over Blige’s “Real Love,” which spent 31 weeks on the Hot 100 in 1992 and reached a peak of No. 7 on the chart.
The allegedly-copied song? “Impeach the President” by the Honey Drippers — a legendary piece of hip-hop source material with a drum track that’s also been sampled or interpolated by Run-DMC, Dr. Dre and many others. Most recently, it was featured in Doja Cat’s 2023 track “Can’t Wait.”
Trending on Billboard
In the complaint, Tuff City’s attorneys say they have “advised defendant repeatedly of the presence of the uncleared sample” in “Real Love” but that Universal has done nothing about it.
“Defendant has repeatedly refused to engage plaintiff in substantive negotiations to rectify the foregoing, let alone agreed to compensate Plaintiff for the past infringement or on an ongoing basis,” wrote Tuff City’s attorney Hillel Parness in the complaint.
Blige herself is not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing.
In a bizarre wrinkle, Tuff City claims that UMG Recordings — a subsidiary of UMG and the owner of the master to “Real Love” — has already reached an agreement regarding the use of the uncleared sample on the sound recording. But they say the music giant’s publishing arm has refused to do the same as it relates to the underlying composition.
“Defendant’s refusal to cooperate with plaintiff is difficult to reconcile with the fact that plaintiff reached an agreement with UMG Recordings,” Tuff City’s attorneys write.
Tuff City, which owns a large catalog of old songs, is no stranger to copyright litigation. Over the past fifteen years, the company has sued over tracks by Jay-Z, Beastie Boys, Christina Aguilera, Frank Ocean and others, typically alleging that they featured unlicensed samples or interpolations.
That process has not always gone smoothly. In 2014, a judge dismissed a case over Jay-Z’s “Run This Town” on the grounds that any alleged sample was “barely perceptible” after multiple listens. In 2018, another judge ordered Tuff City to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees spent by Beastie Boys defending a case that was “clearly without merit.”
The new case is also not the first time Tuff City has sued over “Impeach the President.” Way back in 1991, the company sued Sony Music and Def Jam over claims that producer Marley Marl had illegally sampled the track on LL Cool J tracks “Around the Way Girl” and “Six Minutes of Pleasure.”
At the time, the lawsuit was a novel legal attack on sampling, which had long been at the core of hip-hop but had rarely involved paying for licenses or seeking authorization. In a 1992 article, the New York Times warned that Tuff City’s lawsuit over “Impeach the President” could fundamentally change hip hop, forcing rappers and producers to clear every element used in their albums — a formidable idea at the time.
“A single rap album can include dozens of samples, from single drumbeats to full musical phrases,” the New York Times article reads. “Finding the copyright owners, negotiating fees or royalties and gaining legal clearance is time consuming and can add tens of thousands of dollars to the production costs.”
Tuff City’s case eventually settled on confidential terms, but it proved to be a sign of things to come. In the years since, federal courts have ruled that nearly any amount of sampling of sound recordings counts as copyright infringement. As a result, labels and artists today attempt to clear almost any direct sampling in their songs and will typically remove those elements if a deal can’t be reached.
Of course, Blige’s “Real Love” came out just months after Tuff City filed its case against LL Cool J, and well before such practices had become universal. It’s unclear why the company waited more than 30 years to sue over it, but copyright law has a so-called “rolling” statute of limitations that allows for such long-delayed actions.
A spokesman for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
An attorney who filed one of the several sexual abuse lawsuits against Sean “Diddy” Combs is now facing potential discipline himself after a federal judge in another case sharply criticized him for filing suits designed to “garner media attention” and “embarrass defendants.”
In an order issued Wednesday (April 3) in a separate lawsuit, Judge Denise Cote referred Tyrone Blackburn to the grievance committee for New York’s federal court district – an entity that decides whether attorneys have violated court rules. She cited his conduct in five different lawsuits, saying Blackburn’s filings in those cases had featured “glaring deficiencies.”
“A reasonable inference from Blackburn’s pattern of behavior is that he improperly files cases in federal court to garner media attention, embarrass defendants with salacious allegations, and pressure defendants to settle quickly,” Judge Cote wrote. “Indeed, his submissions to this court have been rife with disturbing allegations against the defendants and defense counsel.”
Trending on Billboard
The order, which came in a legal malpractice lawsuit Blackburn filed last year, referred him to the grievance committee for the Southern District of New York for “such action as it deems appropriate.”
Judge Cote’s ruling is notable because Blackburn is currently serving as lead counsel to Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones, a producer who filed a sweeping abuse lawsuit against Combs in February. The lawsuit is one of several such cases filed against Combs, in addition to a federal criminal investigation that led to raids of his homes last month. Combs has strongly denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
In an email to Billboard on Thursday, Blackburn said: “Not sure how this is at all relevant to Rodney Jones’ case, or any other case I have. This will not have any impact on my ability to proceed in Mr. Jones’ case. Although Judge Cote’s decision was a referral to the SDNY’s grievance committee, and not a sanction, I plan on appealing the decision.”
In his lawsuit last month, Jones accused Combs of repeated sexual assault and harassment while Jones was working as a producer on the rapper’s 2023 The Love Album. But he also went further, claiming that Diddy and others had violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the federal RICO statute best known for criminal cases against the Mafia. As part of those claims, he named several other prominent people as members of that alleged illegal conspiracy, including Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge and former Motown CEO Ethiopia Habtemariam.
Blackburn has already faced scrutiny over those accusations filed on Jones’ behalf. In her response to the lawsuit, Combs’ attorney, Shawn Holley, took the unusual step of calling out her opposing counsel by name, saying that Blackburn had “ignored” evidence of Combs’ innocence before filing the case.
“Our attempts to share this proof with Mr. Jones’ attorney, Tyrone Blackburn, have been ignored, as Mr. Blackburn refuses to return our calls,” Holley said at the time. “We will address these outlandish allegations in court and take all appropriate action against those who make them.”
Last week, attorneys for UMG took similar aim at Blackburn. Arguing that Grainge had “utterly nothing to do” with the allegations against Diddy, the label’s lawyers said the claims were so “offensively false” that they would seek to punish Blackburn himself for filing them.
“A license to practice law is a privilege,” wrote Donald Zakarin, a longtime music industry litigator who represents UMG and Grainge. “Mr. Blackburn, plaintiff’s lawyer, has misused that license to self-promote, gratuitously, falsely and recklessly accusing the UMG defendants of criminal behavior.”
UMG’s filing last week said the company would seek legal sanctions against Blackburn under federal Rule 11, which requires lawyers to make a “reasonable inquiry” into allegations they file in court. That’s the same rule that Judge Cote cited Wednesday in her ruling against Blackburn, saying “his actions in this and prior cases indicate a repeated failure to meet his Rule 11 obligations.”
In arriving at that conclusion, the judge cited multiple instances in which Blackburn allegedly filed cases in the wrong court without properly investigating whether it was the right jurisdiction, as well as an incident in which he called a defense attorney “a disgusting racist” amid a dispute over picking a mediator. The judge also cited an allegation from an opposing lawyer that Blackburn had specifically filed a case in federal court, rather than state court, “because doing so would make the press more likely to pick up on it.”
“Significant resources have been spent by judges of the court and defendants named in actions he has filed to address glaring deficiencies in his filings,” Judge Cote wrote in her ruling on Wednesday. “A referral to this court’s Grievance Committee is warranted.”
It’s unclear how long such a case will take before the grievance committee renders a decision, or what kind of disciplinary measures the body might hand down.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Kevin Mazur / Getty
Ye FKA Kanye West has yet another lawsuit on his hands. A former Donda Academy employee is suing him over his antisemitic behavior and more.
As reported by TMZ, the Chicago, Illinois, native will have to clear his already muddied name in a court of law. A former Donda Academy official is claiming that the “Father Stretch My Hands” performer was doing the absolute most at his children’s school back in 2022. Trevor Phillips says he was hired late that year to help source raw materials for the YZY apparel brand. His responsibilities were soon expanded to oversee the unaccredited private institution during the same time Ye went full antisemite.
On Tuesday, April 2, Phillips filed a lawsuit alleging that not only would Ye be openly bigoted in front of students but also once told them he was going to be build a jail in the school where kids who misbehaved would be locked in cages. “By filing this lawsuit, we hope our injured clients’ rights are vindicated, and that the famous artist Mr. West understands that his messages — which we alleged preach discrimination, antisemitism and Hitler-love — have no place in the world,” Phillips’ attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, explained in a formal statement to People.
This is not the first time Ye has been sued by employees of Donda Academy. According to The Los Angeles Times, in April 2023, two former staffers filed a lawsuit claiming they were unjustly terminated from their positions without warning. Additionally, they revealed the school had very unusual policies including that the kids could not wear clothing from Nike and adidas, outside food was not allowed and there were no janitorial services.
Representatives from Ye’s camp have yet to respond to the matter.
Kanye West is facing another lawsuit filed by a former employee at his Donda Academy, this time accusing him of discriminating against Black staffers and seeking to lock students in cages.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (April 2) in Los Angeles court, Trevor Phillips says the embattled rapper (who now goes by Ye) treated the Black staff at the school “considerably worse than white employees” — and then subjected him to “incessant harassment” and “humiliation” when he spoke up about it.
Like the several other lawsuits filed by former Donda Academy employees, the new complaint includes a number of bizarre allegations about West and his conduct at the school. It claims he told students to “shave their heads” and that he “intended to put a jail at the school” where students could be “locked in cages.”
Trending on Billboard
In another odd alleged episode, Phillips claims West summoned him to a room at the Nobu Hotel, where the rapper put on The Batman and watched it in silence.
“After a long and awkward silence, Kanye finally spoke again,” Phillips claims in the suit. “Turning his attention back to Phillips, he began an unprovoked and bigoted rant attacking Jewish people.” Later that same evening, Phillips claims West lay on the bed and simulated masturbating while talking about having orgies.
Phillips claims he was finally fired last year.
The case is the latest lawsuit filed by former staffers of Donda Academy and the Yeezy Christian Academy that preceded it. One of them, filed in July, claimed that the school lacked windows because the embattled rapper “did not like glass” and that students were not allowed on the second floor because West was “reportedly afraid of stairs.” Another case, filed in April 2023, alleged that the only food available to students was sushi.
As with those earlier cases, the strange allegations contained in Tuesday’s lawsuit supported more straightforward legal claims, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination.
A spokesperson for West did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.
HipHopWired Featured Video
It seems Ye FKA Kanye West has yet another legal battle ahead of him. YesJulz says she is countersuing him after being terminated from his company.
As reported by XXL Magazine, the Miami, Fla. native has spoken out about her recent departure from YZY. On Friday, March 29 she took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to detail her version of the events that led to the professional split.
“I come here to speak my peace because i care only for my truth to be known amongst my personal supporters and audience- not clout or additional eyeballs” she wrote. The talent manager would go on to reveal before she took legal action she attempted to reach out to Ye to work things out but she was unsuccessful.
“By the way – i reached out to every mutual friend i could think of urging them to have @kanyewest call me so i wouldn’t have to move forward with a countersuit I assume everyone is too p**** to address him about this so this is my last attempt before i take action,” she said. YesJulz also took issue with Ye’s Chief of Staff Milo Yiannopoulos. “I gave everyone over a week to do the right thing and fire this pedo, pay me for my completed work and drop the nonsense intent to arbitrate. Even asked everyone in a text if this was real because the way Milo wrote it was so damn laughable.”
Last month, YesJulz was fired from YZY for reportedly violating the company’s nondisclosure agreement. “Fines incurred to date as a result of your NDA violations come to $7.7m. While you were a contractor, I suspended enforcement of this debt. It now falls due. Please note that any further violations will accrue more fines” an email from Milo to YesJulz read.
Ye has yet to comment on the matter.
—
Photo: Getty
HipHopWired Featured Video
Bun B has the hottest thing coming out of Houston since “Still Tippin’” in his wildly popular Trill Burgers. But now, it seems like Bun B’s baby is at the center of a court case with several allegations being thrown around.
According to Chron, Bun B and his ex-associates and co-founders of Trill Burgers, Patsy, and Benson Vivares, are duking it out in a court of law as both sides are accusing each other of theft.
In 2023 Bun B, Andy Nguyen, and Nick Scurfield filed a lawsuit against the Vivares brothers alleging that the two had stolen $45,000 from the company’s coffers. Turning the tables on Bun B and company, Patsy, and Benson filed a counter lawsuit in which they claim that Bun B, Nguyen, and Scurfield not only stole their smash burger idea but also the original recipe, which led to Trill Burgers being crowned the best burger in America.
Represented by Saad Aziz and Walter “Web” Beard of Aziz and Beard Trial Law, the Vivareses are claiming that they linked up with Andy Nguyen in 2021 when they were looking for a new menu item to add to their Sticky’s Chicken restaurant menu.
Chron reports:
“[The Vivareses] spent a lot of time and energy developing the recipe,” Aziz said. “They are the ones who kind of came up with the specifics of the smashburger … now called the OG Trill Burger.”
According to the counterclaims made by the Vivareses, the siblings and Nguyen in July 2021 connected and partnered with Bun B, who had known Nguyen since 2010 and was said to be a fan of Sticky’s Chicken. At the time, Bun B was approached by the Vivareses through a meeting facilitated by Nguyen and Nick Scurfield, founder of the public relations firm Scurfield Group who at the time listed Sticky’s Chicken as a client. According to court documents, the initial meeting was set up to test the rapper’s interest in “being involved with the promotion” of the burger.
A partnership over the smashburger concept was confirmed on July 22, with each partner assuming a percentage of ownership, according to court documents. An email sent to each partner outlined the partnership, indicating that the Vivareses and Nguyen together would retain a 50 percent share, Bun B would have 40 percent, and Scurfield would retain the remaining 10 percent. It is unclear how ownership was split between Nguyen and the Vivareses, though court documents claim that the Vivareses are entitled to 33.4 percent. By Jan. 4 , 2022, a limited liability company was established for Trill Burgers.
Damn! We thought this was Bun B’s secret recipe, but the Vivares are claiming that it’s theirs. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court and who came up with the recipe that put Trill Burgers on the map.
Still, the Trill Burger made its debut in February of 2022 at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo and was a massive hit. The Vivares brothers ran the pop-up themselves and cooked thousands of burgers that day bringing in quite the haul.
As for the $45,000 that Bun B’s team claimed was stolen by the Vivareses, the brothers admitted in texts to “misappropriating” the money but said that all the partners were aware that they would use the profits from the pop-up to pay off Sticky’s mounting debts.
The Vivareses are seeking $1 million from Bun B, Scurfield, Nguyen, and Trill Burgers, LLC, saying they not only stole their recipe for Trill Burgers but also poached their chef, Mike Pham, in the process.
What do y’all think of the drama surrounding Trill Burgers? Let us know in the comments section below.
—
Photo: Houston Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers via Getty Images / Getty
Six months after Sam Smith and Normani beat a copyright lawsuit over their 2019 hit “Dancing With a Stranger,” a federal judge is refusing to force their accuser to reimburse their legal fees — a bill the stars say exceeded $700,000.
Smith and Normani have argued that they shouldn’t be forced to foot the huge bill they incurred fending off the “frivolous and unreasonable” lawsuit, which claimed the duo had copied a little-known 2015 song of the same name when they created “Dancing.”
While U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu dismissed the lawsuit last year, he ruled Monday (Mar. 18) that the case was not so completely baseless as to warrant punishing the accuser with paying the stars’ massive legal bill.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiff’s claims were neither frivolous nor objectively unreasonable,” the judge wrote, calling the lawsuit a “close and difficult case” on a “contentious area of copyright law.”
Attorneys for Smith and Normani had argued that the lawsuit was merely a “gamble,” filed against the stars with “hopes for a massive payout.” But Judge Hsu said Monday there was “no evidence” of such ill intent by the accusers.
The case was filed in 2022 by songwriters Jordan Vincent, Christopher Miranda and Rosco Banlaoi, who claimed that “Dancing” was “strikingly similar” to their 2015 same-named track. In their complaint, they said it was “beyond any real doubt” that the song had been copied.
But in September, Judge Hsu said it was, in fact, very much in doubt. Granting Smith and Normani’s motion for an immediate ruling ending the lawsuit, the judge said the songs simply were not similar — and he criticized the plaintiffs for manipulating them to make them appear more alike.
“Permitting copyright plaintiffs to prevail … by rotating chords, recalibrating the tempo, and altering the pitch of a defendant’s song so that it sounds more similar to the plaintiffs’ would lead courts to deem substantially similar two vastly dissimilar musical compositions,” the judge wrote at the time.
Unlike most forms of American litigation, winners in copyright lawsuits are often able to legally recover the money they spent on lawyers fighting the case. Judges grant such requests in cases where a lawsuit shouldn’t have been filed or was litigated too aggressively, and fee awards can serve as a powerful deterrent against future questionable lawsuits.
In an October motion seeking $732,202 in fees, attorneys for Smith and Normani argued that Vincent, Miranda and Banlaoi’s case had been exactly the kind of pointless lawsuit that needs to be deterred. They argued that the songwriters and their lawyers had used aggressive tactics to advance faulty copyright claims that would be bad for all musicians.
“Plaintiff sought to monopolize unprotectable elements that are common property to all,” Smith and Normani’s lawyers wrote at the time. “Claims like Plaintiff’s here threaten to cheat the public domain and curtail the creation of new works.”
But in Monday’s ruling, Judge Hsu was not persuaded. He called Smith and Normani’s arguments “generic reasoning” that would lead to many such awards in future copyright lawsuits.
“Yes, Plaintiff’s counsel aggressively litigated the case,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff’s conduct in this litigation does not rise to the level that calls for deterrence.”
Judge Hsu did rule that Smith and Normani could recover their legal “costs” from the plaintiffs, but such awards are typically far smaller than awards of attorney’s fees. In earlier court filings, attorneys for Smith and Normani calculated such costs at $10,173.
Neither side’s attorneys immediately returned requests for comment on Tuesday (Mar. 19).
