State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 106
Lawyers for alcohol giant Diageo are demanding that a judge toss out a lawsuit from Sean “Diddy” Combs that accuses the company of racism, calling it “false and reckless” and driven by an effort to “extract additional billions” from the company.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Combs sued in May, claiming Diageo breached his partnership deal for DeLeon Tequila by failing to properly support the brand. But he went a lot further than that, also leveling accusations of racism and claiming Diageo had treated his product line “worse than others because he is Black.”
In the company’s first response to the lawsuit on Tuesday (June 27), Diageo’s lawyers didn’t exactly hold back, either. They called the Diddy’s lawsuit a “bad faith, sham action” filed by a star who had “amassed nearly one billion dollars” from their partnership but now wanted to “extract” billions more.
“These allegations are nothing more than opportunistic attempts to garner press attention and distract the court from the fact that plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim is entirely without merit,” the company’s attorneys wrote. “Diageo categorically denies these accusations.”
In a statement on Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Diageo echoed the message of the company’s legal filing — and said Diageo had permanently cut ties with the rapper.
“Mr. Combs’ bad-faith actions have clearly breached his contracts and left us no choice but to move to dismiss his baseless complaint and end our business relationship,” the company wrote. “Mr. Combs has repeatedly undermined our partnerships and threatened to publicly defame Diageo if we did not meet his unreasonable financial demands.”
In his lawsuit, filed on May 31, attorneys for Diddy’s Combs Wines and Spirits claimed that Diageo had “typecast” his DeLeon as a “Black brand” that could only be sold to “urban” consumers, harming its sales and leaving it lagging behind competing Diageo brands like Casamigos and Don Julio.
“Cloaking itself in the language of diversity and equality is good for Diageo’s business, but it is a lie,” Combs’ lawyers wrote. “While Diageo may conspicuously include images of its Black partners in advertising materials and press releases, its words only provide the illusion of inclusion.”
But in Tuesday’s response, Diageo said those bombastic allegations were just a distraction from a run-of-the-mill business dispute that should have been handled under a binding arbitration agreement that both sides signed. They asked the judge to either dismiss the case or order that it be resolved through that private arbitration process.
“Without its inflammatory rhetoric and false accusations, the complaint is nothing but a garden-variety, and eminently arbitrable, suit alleging breach of contract,” Diageo wrote.
And when it comes to that “garden variety” business dispute, Diageo says it was Combs who was clearly in the wrong. The company claims he was “an unreliable and untrustworthy business partner” who failed to provide sufficient support to help DeLeon thrive, while Diageo supplied over $100 million for the project.
“Unwilling or unable to provide funding for the mutual benefit of the parties and the DeLeón brand, in mid-2020 Combs began to issue threats to damage the brand and defame Diageo and its executives and employees by publicly claiming that DeLeón’s failure to thrive was due to a racial animus against him,” Diageo’s lawyers wrote.
In a statement to Billboard on Tuesday, Combs’ attorney John C. Hueston sharply criticized Diageo’s claims that it was terminating its partnership with the star, saying it was akin to “firing a whistleblower who calls out racism.”
“Over the years, he has repeatedly raised concerns as senior executives uttered racially insensitive comments and made biased decisions based on that point of view,” Hueston said. “Diageo even acknowledged the problem by agreeing in his contract to treat DeLeon the same way it treated their other tequila brands. He brought the lawsuit to force them to live up to that contract, and instead they respond by trying to get rid of him. This lawsuit and Mr. Combs are not going away.”
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Dr. Luke and Kesha end their long-running lawsuit with a settlement just weeks before trial; the RIAA takes legal action against a popular message board centered on artificial intelligence-driven voice mimicry; Kanye West aims to dismiss a lawsuit accusing him of illegally sampling a legendary hip hop group; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Dr. Luke v. Kesha Ends With Settlement
After nearly a decade of bitter litigation between Kesha and Dr. Luke, in which she accused him of rape and he accused her of defaming him by doing so, the lawsuit will end not with a blockbuster trial, but with joint statements wishing each other well.
Just weeks before the case had been set to go to trial, the two sides announced that they had reached a settlement to resolve the long fight, which kicked off in 2014 after Kesha accused her former producer of drugging and raping her after a 2005 party.
The start of the lawsuit pre-dated the #MeToo movement, but it foreshadowed many of the themes that would characterize much of the litigation arising from that cultural reckoning. Dr. Luke claimed her “vengeful” allegations had been designed to “extort” him into releasing her from her record deal; Kesha claimed he was using the court system to silence and bully a victim who spoke out.
It’s not hard to speculate why Dr. Luke settled rather than test his defamation claims before a jury. Ten days before the deal was reached, New York’s top appeals court finally weighed in on key issues that had long delayed the case, and the result wasn’t good for the producer. The court not only said he was a “public figure” – a designation that makes it extremely hard to win libel cases in American courts – but also that Kesha could potentially recoup her legal bills if she won at trial.
But with or without a courthouse showdown, Dr. Luke appears to have gotten some of what he wanted. In their joint statement, Kesha said that “only god knows what happened that night” and that she “cannot recount everything that happened.” In the same joint statement, Dr. Luke was unequivocal: “I never drugged or assaulted her and would never do that to anyone.”
Go read the full statements, and the long backstory of the case, in our story on the big settlement.
Other top stories this week…
FLORIDA DRAG LAW BLOCKED – A federal judge barred Florida from enforcing its recently enacted restrictions on drag performances, ruling that the law likely violates the First Amendment. Proponents of the statute, including presidential hopeful Gov. Ron DeSantis, claimed it was needed to protect children from “lewd” performances, but the judge said the vague new rules were “dangerously susceptible to standardless, overbroad enforcement which could sweep up substantial protected speech.”
RIAA’S AI CRACKDOWN – Lawyers for the industry group moved to shut down a popular Discord server centered on artificial intelligence and voice models called “AI Hub,” obtaining a federal court subpoena to reveal the identities of its users and sending takedown request demanding that Discord shut down the entire channel. The RIAA’s actions are the latest effort by music companies to rein in the disruptive new technology.
NO SCOTUS FOR GENIUS – The U.S. Supreme Court said that it would not take up a lawsuit claiming Google stole millions of song lyrics from Genius, the popular music database that lets users add and annotate lyrics. Genius claimed Google free-rode on the site’s work, but multiple lower courts had ruled that the site couldn’t sue over copyrighted lyrics it didn’t actually own.
SUMMERTIME SETTLEMENT – Lana Del Rey reached a settlement to end a copyright lawsuit claiming her 2012 music video for “Summertime Sadness” featured 17 seconds of material lifted directly from a short film by a director named Lucas Bolaño. The agreement came weeks after a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss the case filed by Del Rey’s lawyers, who argued that the case was filed well after the statute of limitations.
TROY AVE SHOOTER SENTENCED – Hip-hop podcaster Taxstone was sentenced to 35 years in prison following his conviction earlier this year on manslaughter charges over his 2016 fatal shooting of rapper Troy Ave’s bodyguard during a T.I. concert at a New York City venue. His attorneys told Billboard they would appeal: “Justice wasn’t served.”
BOOSIE RELEASED ON GUN CHARGE – Rapper Boosie Badazz was ordered released on bond on his federal gun charge, after a judge rejected a request by prosecutors to keep him behind bars even longer. The charge follows a May 6 traffic stop in which the feds say the New Orleans rapper was found with a handgun — an alleged violation of a federal law prohibiting former felons from possessing firearms.
KANYE RIPS SAMPLING LAWSUIT – With Kanye West facing a lawsuit for allegedly using an uncleared sample from the pioneering rap group Boogie Down Productions, his lawyers made an unusual argument: That BDP founder KRS-One had “emphatically” stated in a 2006 documentary that “my entire catalogue is open to the public” and “you will not get sued if you sample.”
The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it would not take up a lawsuit claiming Google stole millions of song lyrics from the music database Genius.
Genius — a popular platform that lets users add and annotate lyrics — had asked the justice to revive allegations that Google improperly used the site’s carefully-transcribed content for its search results. The company argued that a ruling dismissing the case last year had been “unjust” and “absurd.”
But in an order dated Monday, the court denied Genius’s petition to hear the case, cementing Google’s victory. As is typical, the court did not issue a written ruling explaining the denial. Such petitions are always a long shot, as the Supreme Court takes less than 2% of the 7000 cases it receives each year.
Genius sued the tech giant in 2019, claiming Google had stolen the site’s carefully-transcribed content for its own “information boxes” that appear alongside search results — essentially free-riding on the “time, labor, systems and resources” that go into creating such a service. In a splashy twist, Genius said it had used a secret code buried within lyrics that spelled out REDHANDED to prove Google’s wrongdoing.
Though it sounds like a copyright case, Genius didn’t actually accuse Google of stealing any intellectual property. That’s because it doesn’t own any; songwriters and publishers own the rights to lyrics, and both Google and Genius pay for the same licenses to display them. Instead, Genius argued it had spent time and money transcribing and compiling “authoritative” versions of lyrics, and that Google had breached the site’s terms of service by “exploiting” them without permission.
In March 2022, that distinction proved fatal for Genius. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the case, ruling that only the actual copyright owners — songwriters or publishers — could have filed such a case, not a site that merely transcribed the lyrics. In technical terms, the court said the case was “preempted” by federal copyright law, meaning that the accusations from Genius were so similar to a copyright claim that they could only have been filed that way.
In taking the case to the Supreme Court, Genius argued the ruling would be a disaster for websites that spend time and money to aggregate user-generated content online. Such companies should be allowed to protect that effort against clear copycats, the company said, even if they don’t hold the copyright. “Big-tech companies like Google don’t need any assists from an overly broad view of copyright preemption,” the company wrote.
But last month, the U.S. Solicitor General advised the Supreme Court to steer clear of the case. It said Genius’s lawsuit was a “poor vehicle” for reviewing the issues in the case, and that the lower court did not appear to have done anything particularly novel when it dismissed the case against Google. Such recommendations are usually very influential on whether the justices decide to tackle a particular case.
Lana Del Rey has reached a settlement to end a lawsuit claiming her music video for “Summertime Sadness” featured 17 seconds of material lifted directly from a copyrighted short film, weeks after a federal judge refused to dismiss the case.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Lucas Bolaño sued Del Ray (real name Elizabeth Grant) and Universal Music Group last year, accusing them of “blatant disregard” of his rights. He claimed the 2012 video not only copied the footage from his short film “Sky,” but even stole audio of a voice saying “Remember, I will always love you, bye.”
But in a filing in California federal court on Tuesday, lawyers for both sides said they had reached an agreement for Bolaño to drop his case. Specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
The settlement came just a month after a federal judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit against Del Rey. The star’s lawyers had argued that Bolaño waited far too long to sue, but in a May 16 ruling, Judge Stephen Wilson sent the case to a jury trial — a risky proposition even for any defendant.
Bolaño sued in July 2022, claiming the first 17 seconds of the “Summertime Sadness” music video was copied directly from his film, with “only marginal differences” like cropping and color saturation: “These minor alterations do not make Defendants’ copying any less apparent or egregious.”
His lawyers claimed the video, which had more than 350 million views on YouTube when he filed his case, had “generated millions of dollars in royalties” for Del Rey and UMG. “Unfortunately, Plaintiffs have not seen a dime of these ill-gotten proceeds and have never even been credited for their work,” they wrote.
In April, attorneys for Del Rey asked a federal judge to toss the case out. They didn’t argue about whether or not the clip appeared in the music video, but said simply that Bolaño had waited years too long to sue. In particular, they pointed to a 2015 YouTube comment on his short film, in which a user said “this was used in Summertime Sadness!”
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the music video and Del Rey’s use of their works no later than 2015,” the star’s lawyers wrote. “Ignoring clear, indisputable, and specific notice, plaintiffs waited an additional seven years to bring this suit.”
But Bolaño argued that he never saw that comment and didn’t notice Del Rey’s video until 2021. And last month, a Judge Wilson said a jury might believe that argument: “These arguments are more properly resolved before the jury.”
Lawyers for the RIAA are aiming to shut down a popular Discord server centered on artificial intelligence and voice models, the latest effort by music companies to rein in the disruptive new technology.
In an action filed last week in D.C. federal court, attorneys for RIAA obtained a subpoena demanding that Discord reveal the identities of users on “AI Hub,” a message board with 145,000 members that calls itself “a community dedicated to making AI voices and songs.”
In a letter to Discord presenting the company with the subpoena, the RIAA said those users had “infringed … copyrighted sound recordings” and that the tech company was required to hand over names, physical addresses, payment info, IP addresses and other identifying details.
The group’s lawyers also sent Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to Discord, first in late May and then again next week. The group demanded that Discord disable access to the server, remove or disable the infringing material, and inform the server’s users “of the illegality of their conduct.”
“This server [is] dedicated to infringing our members’ copyrighted sound recordings by offering, selling, linking to, hosting, streaming, and/or distributing files containing our members’ sound recordings without authorization,” the RIAA’s lawyers wrote in their June letter to Discord, which was obtained by Billboard. “We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity.”
The subpoena against Discord was obtained under the DMCA’s Section 512(h), which enables rights holders like the RIAA’s members to unmask the identities of anonymous online infringers in certain circumstances.
Discord can fight back by seeking to “quash” the subpoena; Twitter won such a challenge last year, when a federal judge ruled that the First Amendment rights of a user trumped the need for an unmasking order. It could also refuse to honor the takedown, but that would put the site itself at risk of litigation.
As of Thursday evening (June 22), the main AI Hub server remained up on Discord; it was unclear if individual content or sub-channels had been removed. A spokesperson for the company did not return a request for comment.
In a statement to Billboard, an RIAA spokesperson confirmed that the group had taken the action against AI Hub. “When those who seek to profit from AI train their systems on unauthorized content, it undermines the entire music ecosystem – harming creators, fans, and responsible developers alike. This action seeks to help ensure that lawless systems that exploit the life’s work of artists without consent cannot and do not become the future of AI.”
The RIAA’s actions are just the latest sign that the explosive growth of AI technologies over the past year has sparked serious concerns in the music industry.
One big fear is that copyrighted songs are being used en masse to “train” AI models, all without any compensation going to the songwriters or artists that created them. In April, Universal Music Group demanded that Spotify and other streaming services prevent AI companies from doing so on their platforms, warning that it “will not hesitate to take steps to protect our rights.”
Another fear is the proliferation of so-called deepfake versions of popular music, like the AI-generated fake Drake and The Weeknd track that went viral in April. That song was quickly pulled down, but its uncanny vocals and mass popularity sparked concerns about future celebrity rip offs.
For RIAA, AI Hub likely triggered both of those worries. The server features numerous “voice models” that mimic the voices of specific real singers, including Michael Jackson and Frank Sinatra. And in the wake of the RIAA’s actions, users on the Discord server speculated Thursday that the takedowns were filed because users had disclosed that some of the models had been trained on copyrighted songs.
“We have had certain threats from record labels to takedown models, mainly because some posters decided to share datasets full of copyrighted music publicly,” one AI Hub admin wrote. “If you want to avoid unnecessary takedowns[,] most importantly, do NOT share the full dataset if you have copyrighted material in the dataset. The voice model itself is fine, but don’t share the dataset.”
Kesha and Dr. Luke have reached a settlement to end his long-running lawsuit accusing the pop star of defaming him by accusing him of rape, just a week after a New York court issued a key ruling that would have made it harder for Dr. Luke to win the case.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Reached just weeks before the case had been set to go to trial, the agreement will resolve nearly a decade of litigation between the two former creative partners. The producer claimed Kesha legally defamed him in 2014 when she made a “false and shocking” allegation: that he allegedly drugged and raped her after a 2005 party.
In a joint press release on social media featuring statements from both sides, Kesha said that “only god knows what happened that night.”
“As I have always said, I cannot recount everything that happened,” the star wrote. “I am looking forward to closing the door on this chapter of my life and beginning a new one. I wish nothing but peace to all parties involved.”
In his own statement, Dr. Luke said he was “absolutely certain that nothing happened” that night in 2005: “I never drugged or assaulted her and would never do that to anyone. For the sake of my family, I have vigorously fought to clear my name for nearly 10 years. It is time for me to put this difficult matter behind me and move on with my life. I wish Kesha well.”
The abrupt settlement came just 10 days after New York’s top appeals court handed a key victory to Kesha in the case. The court ruled that Dr. Luke was a “public figure,” a finding that would make his case far harder to prove; it also said that Kesha could recoup her legal bills if she ultimately won.
Dr. Luke, whose full name is Lukasz Gottwald, filed his lawsuit against Kesha in 2014, claiming she had legally defamed him with a “false and shocking” allegation that he drugged and raped her after a 2005 party. He claimed she did so as leverage to secure a more lucrative deal. Kesha long denied those accusations, arguing that the defamation case was an effort to silence the voice of a victim.
The pair spent years in bitter litigation over those claims, with numerous procedural delays and appeals slowing down the process. But after more than eight years of litigation, a trial in Dr. Luke’s lawsuit had finally been scheduled to start on July 19.
Beyond Thursday’s statements, no details about the settlement were immediately released by the parties or made available in public court records.
Read Kesha and Dr. Luke’s statements below:
A Manhattan judge on Tuesday (June 20) sentenced rapper and podcaster Taxstone to 35 years in prison following his conviction earlier this year on manslaughter charges over his 2016 fatal shooting of rapper Troy Ave’s bodyguard during a T.I. concert at Irving Plaza.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Taxstone, whose real name is Daryl Campbell, was convicted in March of shooting and killing 33-year-old Ronald “Banga” McPhatter and seriously injuring three others – a crime that prosecutors said stemmed from Taxstone’s longstanding feud with rapper Troy Ave, whose real name Roland Collins.
“Daryl Campbell used a firearm to target his rival, which led to loss of a life and serious injuries to innocent bystanders,” District Attorney Bragg said in a statement Tuesday. “Gun violence cannot be used as a way to address conflict. The toll of guns continues to be staggeringly high and it is horrific that a night out at a concert ended tragically.”
Campbell’s lawyer, Kenneth Montgomery, told Billboard in a brief statement that his client would be appealing the conviction: “Justice wasn’t served,” Montgomery said.
Prosecutors say that Campbell, best known for his Tax Season podcast, confronted Collins in the green room at Irving Plaza on May 25, 2016, shortly before Collins was set to open for T.I. He allegedly shot McPhatter in the chest, fatally wounding him, before shooting Collins in both legs during a struggle for the gun. A man and a woman were also allegedly hit, seriously wounding both.
According to prosecutors, the incident came after years of escalating feuding on social media and podcasts. “When I see you walking up with six dudes, bang-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba,” Campbell said of Collins. Collins responded with a diss track: “Twitter fingers, how many times ya gonna tweet me? I’m always on the flier, guess you too scared to meet me.”
Campbell was eventually arrested on federal guns charges in January 2017, after federal prosecutors said his DNA was found on a handgun that was used in the shooting. After he pleaded guilty to those charges, he was arrested by New York authorities in July 2017 and charged with the shooting itself.
In March, a New York jury found him guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, two counts of assault in the first degree, one count of assault in the second degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Twitter is facing a lawsuit from dozens of music publishers over copyright infringement; Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee and other reggaeton stars fight back against a massive lawsuit; unsealed documents offer key details on the gun charges against Boosie BadAzz; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Twitter’s $250 Million Music Problem
In last week’s least surprising development, the music publishers sued Twitter. After years of warnings from National Music Publishers’ Association — David Israelite called Elon Musk’s website his “top legal focus” earlier this year — dozens of the group’s members filed a sweeping copyright lawsuit in federal court.
Surprise or not, the case is a big deal. The publishers claim that Twitter has infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for as much as $255 million in damages.
Damages aren’t likely the end goal for the publishers. Licensing deals outside the realm of plain ole music streaming, ranging from social media sites like Instagram to gaming platforms like Roblox to fitness services like Peloton, have become an increasingly large slice of the revenue pie for publishers and songwriters in recent years. But many of those deals only came as settlements to lawsuits — just ask Roblox and Peloton. Twitter, the publishers say, is one of the last holdouts refusing to sign such a deal.
To read more about the lawsuit, including the actual complaint itself, go read our entire story here.
If it doesn’t end in a quick settlement, the case will also be a fascinating look at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a federal law that limits how websites like Twitter can be sued over copyright infringement by their users — and one that has long frustrated content owners. The DMCA provides sites like Twitter with immunity from litigation over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove infringing content and ban repeated violators from the platform. The new lawsuit claims Twitter failed to do either of those things, meaning the site has legally forfeited the DMCA’s protections.
In that sense, the lawsuit against Twitter is something of spiritual sequel to a series of cases filed against internet service providers like Cox, which pioneered the argument that providers had waived the DMCA’s safe harbor by failing to crack down on subscribers who repeatedly infringed. After a federal judge ruled that Cox had lost the DMCA’s protections, a jury later ordered the company to pay $1 billion in damages to the three major music companies. Yes, billion, with a “B.”
Will those same arguments work against Twitter? Stay tuned.
Other top stories this week…
MASSIVE REGGAETON CASE – Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee, Karol G and dozens of other artists asked a federal judge to toss out a sprawling copyright lawsuit that claims hundreds of reggaeton tracks infringed a single 1989 song. In their motion to end the case, Daddy Yankee and many other stars argued that the accusers are “effectively claiming ownership of an entire genre of music.” Bad Bunny, in his own filing, said the case aims to “stake monopolistic control over the reggaeton genre.”
BOOSIE BADAZZ GUN CHARGE – Newly-unsealed charging documents against rapper Boosie Badazz revealed that his recent federal gun charge came after San Diego police tracked his Instagram account and even used a helicopter to locate him in an allegedly gang-affiliated neighborhood.
BAD SERVICE? A judge ruled that Sony Music Entertainment could serve a copyright lawsuit on a TikTok rapper by sending him a message through his DMs. The ruling detailed how the label’s lawyers had spent months unsuccessfully trying to do so in-person — including showing up to his mom’s house on Mother’s Day “in hopes that he would be there to celebrate with her.”
50 CENT ENDS BOOZE BATTLE – The rapper reached a settlement with Rémy Martin to resolve a lawsuit that claimed his Branson brand of cognac copied the design of the company’s bottles. The confidential deal will end litigation that 50 Cent’s company had called “meritless” and designed to “destroy a competitor.”
Daddy Yankee, Karol G and dozens of other artists are asking a federal judge to toss out a sprawling copyright lawsuit that claims “Despacito” and hundreds of other reggaeton tracks infringed a single 1989 song, arguing the accusers are “effectively claiming ownership of an entire genre of music.”
The case, filed by Jamaican duo Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, claims that their 1989 song “Fish Market” has been sampled or interpolated into more than 1,800 songs in the years since it was released — and that each one amounts to an act of copyright infringement.
But in a motion filed Thursday (June 15), attorneys for the accused infringers finally struck back — arguing that after “30 years of inaction,” Clevie & Steely were unfairly trying to monopolize a whole style of popular music.
“Plaintiffs [are] effectively claiming ownership of an entire genre of music by claiming exclusive rights to the rhythm and other unprotectable musical elements common to all ‘reggaeton’-style songs,” wrote lawyers from Pryor Cashman, the same law firm that just won Ed Sheeran’s big trial with similar arguments.
First filed in 2021, the enormous lawsuit names more than 150 defendants, including “Despacito” stars Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber as well as Bad Bunny, Anitta, Pitbull, Karol G, Ricky Martin, El Chombo and many other artists, plus units of all three major music companies. The case claims that “Fish Market,” and several other songs that directly copied it, formed the basis for the “dembow” rhythm that’s been used in countless reggaeton songs in the years since.
But in Thursday’s response, lawyers from Pryor Cashman (who represent 89 of those defendants) said the size of the case had made it a procedural disaster — a confusing mess in which nobody knows exactly what they’re accused of doing wrong. Without those specific allegations, they said Clevie & Steely had failed to satisfy “the fundamental elements of a copyright infringement claim.”
“The [complaint] is a ‘shotgun pleading’ filled with conclusory allegations that lump defendants together, making it impossible for Defendants to determine what each is alleged to have done, what works are at issue and what in those works is allegedly infringing,” the attorneys wrote.
The lawyers for Daddy Yankee and the other defendants also sharply criticized the length of time that elapsed before bringing the case. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that copyright cases can usually be filed even decades later, but Thursday’s filing said that Clevie & Steely’s case pushed that system to its breaking point.
“Plaintiffs neither filed any action nor registered any copyrights until 2020 — at least thirty years after the creation of the works,” the lawyers for the accused artists wrote. “These failures constitute misleading inaction, during which an entire genre of reggaeton music developed, which plaintiffs now claim to own.”
An attorney for Clevie & Steely did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.
Despite being filed in 2021, the case over “Fish Market” is still in the earliest stages, thanks in no small part to the procedural complexity of a lawsuit involving scores of defendants and hundreds of songs. If Thursday’s motion is denied, the case will proceed into discovery, where both sides will exchange evidence, and head toward an eventual trial. But such a resolution could still be years away.
The suspect in a mass shooting at a Colorado Springs gay nightclub is expected to strike a plea deal to state murder and hate charges that would ensure at least a life sentence for the attack that killed five people and wounded 17, several survivors told The Associated Press.
Word of a possible legal resolution of last year’s Club Q massacre follows a series of jailhouse phone calls from the suspect to the AP expressing remorse and the intention to face the consequences at the next scheduled court hearing this month.
“I have to take responsibility for what happened,” 23-year-old Anderson Lee Aldrich said in their first public comments about the case.
Federal and state authorities and defense attorneys declined to comment on a possible plea deal. But Colorado law requires victims to be notified of such deals, and several people who lost loved ones or were wounded in the attack told the AP that state prosecutors have given them advance word that Aldrich will plead guilty to charges that would ensure the maximum state sentence of life behind bars.
Prosecutors also recently asked survivors to prepare for the June 26 hearing by writing victim-impact statements and steeling themselves emotionally for the possible release of the Club Q surveillance video of the attack.
“Someone’s gone that can never be brought back through the justice system,” said Wyatt Kent, who was celebrating his 23rd birthday in Club Q when Aldrich opened fire, gunning down Kent’s partner, Daniel Aston, who was working behind the bar. “We are all still missing a lot, a partner, a son, a daughter, a best friend.”
Jonathan Pullen, the suspect’s step-grandfather who plans to watch the upcoming hearing on a livestream, said Aldrich “has to realize what happened on that terrible night. It’s truly beginning to dawn on him.”
Aldrich faces more than 300 state counts, including murder and hate crimes. And the U.S. Justice Department is considering filing federal hate crime charges, according to a senior law enforcement official familiar with the matter who spoke to AP on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing case. It’s unclear whether the anticipated resolution to the state prosecution will also resolve the ongoing FBI investigation.
Some survivors who listened to the suspect’s recorded comments to the AP lambasted them as a calculated attempt to avoid the federal death penalty, noting they stopped short of discussing a motive, put much of the blame on drugs and characterized the crime in passive, generalities such as “I just can’t believe what happened” and “I wish I could turn back time.” Such language, they said, belied by the maps, diagrams, online rants and other evidence that showed months of plotting and premeditation.
“No one has sympathy for him,” said Michael Anderson, who was bartending at Club Q when the shooting broke out and ducked as several patrons were gunned down around him. “This community has to live with what happened, with collective trauma, with PTSD, trying to grieve the loss of our friends, to move past emotional wounds and move past what we heard, saw and smelled.”
Terror erupted just before midnight on Nov. 19 when the suspect walked into Club Q, a longtime sanctuary for the LGBTQ community in this mostly conservative city of 480,000, and fired an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle indiscriminately. Disbelief gave way to screaming and confusion as the music continued to play. Partygoers dove across a bloody dance floor for cover. Friends frantically tried to protect each other and plugged wounds with napkins.
The killing only stopped after a Navy petty officer grabbed the barrel of the suspect’s rifle, burning his hand because it was so hot. An Army veteran joined in to help subdue and beat Aldrich until police arrived, finding the shooter had emptied one high-capacity magazine and was armed with several more.
Aldrich, who since their arrest has identified as nonbinary and uses the pronouns they and them, allegedly visited Club Q at least six times in the years before the attack. District Attorney Michael Allen told a judge that the suspect’s mother made Aldrich go to the club “against his will and sort of forced that culture on him.”
Allen also has said the suspect administered a website that posted a “neo-Nazi white supremacist” shooting training video. Online gaming friends said Aldrich expressed hatred for the police, LGBTQ people and minorities and used anti-Black and anti-gay slurs. And a police detective testified that Aldrich sent an online message with a photo of a rifle scope trained on a gay pride parade.
Defense attorneys in previous hearings have not disputed Aldrich’s role in the shooting but have pushed back against allegations it was motivated by hate, arguing the suspect was drugged up on cocaine and medication the night of the attack.
“I don’t know if this is common knowledge but I was on a very large plethora of drugs,” Aldrich told the AP. “I had been up for days. I was abusing steroids. … I’ve finally been able to get off that crap I was on.”
Aldrich didn’t answer directly when asked whether the attack was motivated by hate, saying only that’s “completely off base.”
Even a former friend of Aldrich found their remarks to be disingenuous. “I’m really glad he’s trying to take accountability but it’s like the ‘why’ is being shoved under the rug,” said Xavier Kraus, who lived across the hall from Aldrich at a Colorado Springs apartment complex.
The AP sent Aldrich a handwritten letter several months ago asking them to discuss a 2021 kidnapping arrest following a standoff with a SWAT team, a prosecution that had been dismissed and sealed despite video evidence of Aldrich’s crimes. In that case, just months before the Club Q shooting, they threatened to become “the next mass killer” and stockpiled guns, ammo, body armor and a homemade bomb. The incident was livestreamed on Facebook and prompted the evacuation of 10 nearby homes as authorities discovered a tub with more than 100 pounds of explosive materials.
The alleged shooter, who lived with their grandparents at the time and was upset about their plans to move to Florida, threatened to kill the couple and “go out in a blaze,” authorities said. “You guys die today and I’m taking you with me,” they quoted the suspect as saying. “I’m loaded and ready.”
The charges were dismissed even after relatives wrote a judge warning that Aldrich was “certain” to commit murder if freed. District Attorney Allen, facing heavy criticism, later attributed the dismissal of the case to Aldrich’s family members refusing to cooperate and repeatedly dodging out-of-state subpoenas.
In response to AP’s letter, Aldrich first phoned a reporter in March and asked to be paid for an interview, a request that was declined. They called back late last month, days after prosecutors wrote in a court filing that there was “near-unanimous sentiment” among the victims for “the most expedient determination of case-related issues.”
In a series of six calls, each limited by an automated jail phone system to 15 minutes, the suspect said: “Nothing’s ever going to bring back their loved ones. People are going to have to live with injury that can’t be repaired.”
Asked why it happened, they said, “I don’t know. That’s why I think it’s so hard to comprehend that it did happen. … I’m either going to get the death penalty federally or I will go to prison for life, that’s a given.”
While the AP normally would not provide a platform to someone alleged to have committed such a crime, editors judged that the suspect’s stated intent to accept responsibility and expression of remorse were newsworthy and should be reported.
Former Club Q bartender Anderson was among survivors who told prosecutors they wanted a fast resolution of the criminal case.
“My fear is that if this takes years, that prevents the processing and moving on and finding peace beyond this case,” he said. “I would love this wrapped up as quickly as possible under the guarantee that justice is served.”
