Legal News
Page: 7
Megadeth and lead singer Dave Mustaine have agreed to pay $1.4 million to resolve allegations that they still owed commissions to a long-time manager after he was “unceremoniously” fired and replaced by Mustaine’s son.
The deal will resolve claims in a lawsuit filed last year by Cory Brennan and his Five B Artist Management, which alleged that Mustaine was refusing to hand over more than $1 million in unpaid commissions after abruptly terminating Brennan in early 2023.
In a filing made public on Wednesday (Nov. 13), attorneys for Brennan alerted a Los Angeles judge that Mustaine and Megadeth had agreed to pay the manager and Five B a total of $1,400,006 to end the litigation over those accusations.
Trending on Billboard
The settlement will not end the dispute entirely. Mustaine countersued Brennan last year, claiming his tenure as manager had been “plagued with missteps” that caused serious harm, including damaging Mustaine’s hearing. Those claims were not resolved by the settlement and will continue to be litigated.
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, Brennan’s attorney, Howard King, said that while his client was “displeased at having to sue an artist,” he was “gratified” by the settlement payment.
“Dave Mustaine, who has a known history of firing advisors, terminated Five B Artist Management after 9 years of their having resurrected his failing career,” King said. “Ignoring the success Five B had helped Dave achieve, including a campaign to help him win his first Grammy, the release of two hit albums, and the elevation of his touring from small clubs back to arenas and amphitheaters, Dave simply refused to pay commissions owing and forced 5B to file a lawsuit.”
Mustaine’s attorney, Richard Busch, did not immediately return a request for comment on the settlement.
In a June 2023 lawsuit, Brennan alleged that Mustaine had sought him out in 2014 to “manage his career and get it back on track,” following an extended downturn in commercial and critical success in which the beloved thrash metal band “seemed to have lost their way.” Over the next nine years, Brennan said he had “worked tirelessly” for Mustaine, including “helping him with his personal struggles” and successfully re-establishing Megadeth as “one of the greatest metal bands of all time.”
But the lawsuit claimed that Mustaine abruptly fired Brennan in early 2023, leaving him owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid touring commissions and hundreds of thousands more in merchandise commissions.
“Despite this success and their long-term relationship, on April 28, 2023, Mustaine, through his lawyer, unexpectedly and unceremoniously terminated Plaintiffs, stating no reason for the termination,” the lawsuit alleged. “The decision was made to help send business to Mustaine’s son, who has been trying to build a career in artist management.”
Months later, Megadeth and Mustaine fired back with a countersuit of their own, claiming that Brennan had been fired due to “repeated management failures” that had “dealt serious blows to Megadeth’s reputation and even David Mustaine’s physical health.”
Mustaine’s lawyers claimed that both sides had always agreed that each would “go their separate ways” following any split between Brennan and the band — and the lawsuit was simply retaliation because the ex-manager was “upset” that his “mishandling” of the band’s business had finally “caught up with him.”
“The cross-defendants’ unfounded claims are nothing more than an attempt to capstone their years of mistreatment with extortionate demands for money not earned by cross-defendants nor owed by cross-plaintiffs,” Busch wrote in the complaint.
Since the initial accusations and counter-claims, the case had spent months in discovery — the process of exchanging evidence in a litigation. No rulings on the merits of the cases have yet been issued.
Following the settlement of Brennan’s claims, Mustaine’s accusations of wrongdoing against him — including breach of contract and negligence — will continue toward an eventual trial.
This story was published as part of Billboard’s music technology newsletter ‘Machine Learnings.’
Sign up for ‘Machine Learnings,’ and Billboard’s other newsletters, here.
Last week, Universal Music Group filed a $500 million lawsuit against TuneCore and its parent company Believe over alleged copyright infringement of UMG’s recordings. The lawsuit presented two core issues: first, that bad actors used TuneCore to upload songs to streaming services that were simply sped up or remixed versions of UMG-copyrighted recordings, often listed under slight misspellings of the real artist, like “Kendrik Laamar” or “Arriana Gramde.” Second, it claimed that “Believe has taken advantage of the content management claiming system” on YouTube “to divert” and “delay… payment of royalties” that belong to record labels.
If you’ve been following the issues in this case over the last few years, this lawsuit feels like a long time coming, and the issues that UMG raises are certainly not just a TuneCore-specific issue — they’re an industry-wide DIY distribution issue. With the vast scale of songs being uploaded through these companies, and staffs that are too small to catch every bad actor, infringing material has, according to just about everybody, flooded onto streaming services.
The distributors know it’s a problem, too. It’s why TuneCore, DistroKid, CD Baby, Symphonic, Downtown and more formed the Music Fights Fraud coalition in 2023 and say they have increasingly invested in preventing fraud and infringement. Unfortunately, Beatdapp, the industry leader in identifying streaming fraud, believes the problem has only worsened since then. UMG is also not convinced that TuneCore is doing enough, saying that the company’s business model incentivizes them to “turn a blind eye” to this damaging activity.
Below, I’ve condensed some of the arguments I’ve heard among industry leaders both for and against DIY distribution continuing just as it is today. I’ll let you judge which outcome is better.
Trending on Billboard
Argument #1: Why its essential to protect DIY distribution as is
It’s easy to take for granted today that anyone who wants to release a song can do it themselves, but that wasn’t always the case. When physical records reigned supreme, record label contracts often favored the companies involved, and seldom went the artists’ way. At the time, artists were essentially forced to sign to a record label if they wanted a chance at shelf space in stores — especially worldwide. This left artists vulnerable to unequal label deals that locked them in for many albums while the label took the lion’s share of the royalties and the copyrights, often in perpetuity.
When Distrokid, CD Baby, TuneCore and the like emerged in the 2000s, they let anyone sign up for distribution services to digital outlets like the iTunes Store for a flat fee and forever altered the power dynamic. Today, the playing field has leveled significantly: hobbyists can get their music out to the world and artists with professional aspirations can wait as long as they want before they have to give up a single percentage point of their master recordings to a label. These companies helped shift negotiating power to the artists, and for the first time, started the process of allowing music fans to decide what songs would pop, rather than the labels that pulled favors with the gatekeepers who worked in radio, retail and the press.
The shift also presented a new, lucrative business opportunity. Music companies no longer need superstars in their catalogs to make their numbers. In fact, they don’t need catalogs at all. A company can now make money by providing services, like distribution, to the masses of previously-overlooked musical hopefuls instead, relying on volume to make up the numbers.
But that volume allowed for the proliferation of fraud, which is a problem that evolves every day, and bad people will always find loopholes. Already, most distributors have implemented common-sense regulations and checks to curb fraud and invested money into quality control teams. But for many experts, it feels impossible to totally solve the problem. As it’s commonly said, this is an endless game of “wack-a-mole.”
But if the barriers to DIY distribution are too significant — like limiting the number of releases, gating who can use it, hiking the platform fee, adding a streaming threshold, or slowing down release time — it could take power away from indie musicians that they have become accustomed to. Such a move would be a step backward for artistic freedom, and the cost of implementing these regulations could threaten to put some of the smaller distributors out of business. Less choice and competition in DIY distribution isn’t better for users.
It’s impossible to put the DIY distribution genie back in the bottle. Artists, who have become used to the current system, would still find ways to get their music out there quickly and cheaply — whether fraudulent or not. Likely, that music would go out on social media or to social-streaming hybrids like YouTube and SoundCloud, both of which pay out royalties and can still be cheated. Streaming services, like Spotify, Apple and Amazon, would risk losing listenership and music discovery to social media platforms — something they already struggle with in today’s TikTok era — and it might not even solve the problems it targeted.
Argument #2: Why the DIY distribution system is in need of serious reform
Currently, over 120,000 songs are uploaded to streaming services every day, a rate that has rapidly increased for years and will likely continue to do so. This is mostly due to DIY distributors. While it is great that aspiring artists can get their music out there cheaply and easily, this has also led to rampant fraud and copyright infringement that puts excessive burdens on rights holders to police their own catalogs online. What happens when we inevitably get to a point where 1 million songs are uploaded every day? We can’t keep going as we are now, and we are in need of serious reform.
While DIY distributors have announced initiatives like Music Fights Fraud and have hosted panels at industry conferences to explain the new methods they are using to stop bad actors, some people say these companies have an incentive for at least some of it to slip by their watch, given their business models rely on receiving fees in exchange for uploading as many songs as possible. Self-policing is not enough, considering this problem only seems to get worse.
The introduction of generative AI has made this matter even more pressing. While it’s impossible to know how much of the music being uploaded today is AI-generated, and to date the streaming services have no regulations against this, it is certainly contributing to the rising number of songs released to streaming services per day. AI songs are believed to be exploited by bad actors to commit streaming fraud, as we saw in the September lawsuit which alleged a musician named Michael “Mike” Smith stole $10 million in streaming royalties by uploading AI-generated songs using a distributor and then used bots to stream them. Bad actors upload AI songs en masse to spread out artificial streams and make their schemes tougher to detect.
It’s hard to argue that it makes a user’s streaming experience better when a platform has a vast number of AI songs and tracks that not a single person has streamed, and it’s clear that these songs, largely stemming from DIY distributors, are diluting the royalty pool at the expense of what some stakeholders have called “professional artists.” The negligibly low payments earned by hobbyists who have accrued hundreds or just a few thousand streams are sometimes lower than the fees one would incur from transferring the royalties into their bank account.
These distributors, the argument goes, should be penalized for the bad actors they let through. This has been proposed in many forms so far, including a financial penalty instituted by streaming services, requirements for significant “know your customer” checks to slow down uploads and verify users’ identities, a minimum stream count threshold before artists can be eligible for royalty collection, a limit to the number of songs a user can upload at a time, an additional fee for storing massive uploads to streaming services, and more.
It’s not a viable business if you rely on a massive scale of song uploads but can’t afford the proper staffers and tools to police them.
Universal Music Group wants a federal judge to dismiss a copyright lawsuit claiming Mary J. Blige’s 1992 hit “Real Love” used a famed 1973 funk sample without a license, arguing the accusers have popped up “out of the blue” to sue over two tracks that “sound nothing alike.”
The case, filed in earlier this year by Tuff City Records, claims Blige’s track borrowed from “Impeach the President” by the Honey Drippers — a legendary piece of hip-hop source material with a drum track that’s been sampled or interpolated by Run-DMC, Dr. Dre, Doja Cat and many others over the years.
But in a response on Tuesday, UMG argues that Tuff City’s case is deeply flawed and must be tossed out of court at the outset.
Trending on Billboard
“Now, more than 30 years after ‘Real Love’ was released, plaintiff appears out of the blue alleging that ‘Real Love’ contains an uncleared sample from ‘Impeach the President,’ with no allegations concerning the works’ substantial similarity,” the music giant wrote. “The absence of that allegation is fatal.”
One key claim in Tuff City’s lawsuit is that UMG’s recorded music unit (UMG Recordings, Inc.) has already reached a settlement regarding the use of the “Impeach” sample on the “Real Love” sound recording, but that UMG’s publishing arm is unfairly refusing to do the same for the musical composition.
In Tuesday’s response, UMG confirmed the existence of that earlier settlement over the sound recording, but said it was entirely separate and complete “irrelevant” to a dispute over the composition. UMG’s attorneys said the settlement did not admit that “Real Love” infringed “Impeach” — but that even if it had, Tuff City was “confusing” a basic distinction that lies at the heart of music copyright law.
“Plaintiff … insinuates that defendant infringes simply because non-party UMG settled plaintiff’s claim of infringement [over] the sound recording,” the company wrote. “Because there exist two separate copyrights in music … a work can readily infringe one without infringing the other.”
Blige’s “Real Love” spent 31 weeks on the Hot 100 in 1992 and reached a peak of No. 7 on the chart. It has remained one of the star’s most enduring hits, with more than 105 million spins on Spotify and a movie adaptation released by Lifetime last year.
Tuff City sued UMG over the track in April, claiming it had “advised defendant repeatedly” about the allegedly uncleared sample, but that Universal had 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.”
The lawsuit did not name Blige herself as a defendant nor accuse her of any wrongdoing.
Tuff City, which owns a large catalog of old songs, is no stranger to copyright litigation – filing cases over tracks by Jay-Z, Beastie Boys, Christina Aguilera, Frank Ocean with claims that they featured unlicensed samples or interpolations. The company has even already sued over “Impeach the President,” claiming in a 1991 complaint that it had been illegally sampled on the LL Cool J tracks “Around the Way Girl” and “Six Minutes of Pleasure.”
The company has won plenty of rulings and settlements, but the litigation process has not always gone smoothly. In 2014, a judge dismissed one Tuff City case over Jay-Z’s “Run This Town” on the grounds that any alleged sample was “barely perceptible” after multiple listens. In that ruling, the judge chided Tuff City over its approach to the case, saying it “incorrectly … assumes that every copying of any part of another artist’s protected work is infringement.”
In Tuesday’s motion seeking to dismiss the “Real Love” case, UMG directly cited that 2014 ruling – arguing that the two songs “sound nothing alike” and that Tuff City had failed to argue otherwise.
“Unwilling to learn from the lessons of its past, plaintiff again seeks to assert copyright liability without plausibly pleading substantial similarity with respect to the musical compositions at issue here,” the company wrote. “The copyright claim must accordingly be dismissed.”
An attorney for Tuff City did not immediately return a request for comment.
BERLIN — GEMA, the German performing rights organization (PRO), today sued OpenAI for copyright infringement in Munich regional court, alleging that the technology company used without permission lyrics from songs to which GEMA licenses rights. This makes GEMA the first PRO to file such a lawsuit, although it controls some rights that U.S. societies do not. This also seems to be the first case involving only lyrics; the case does not involve recordings. In its announcement, GEMA described the suit as a “model action,” aimed at clarifying copyright law in Germany, and potentially all of Europe.
Since OpenAI offers copyrighted song lyrics in response to prompts, GEMA is alleging that the company trained its software on song lyrics that it has the rights to license, so it is suing the company for violations of the making available and reproduction right. (Making available is a right under European law that in this case is roughly analogous to the right of public performance, or in this case public display. It’s also alleging two infringing reproductions – one to ingest the lyrics for training purposes and another when they are output.) In the U.S., PROs do not control mechanical rights, so they would not have the standing to file such a lawsuit.
Trending on Billboard
So far, most of the music business lawsuits involving AI companies have been over the ingestion of recordings, although that by definition would also involve the underlying compositions. But OpenAI is already facing a considerable amount of litigation, including a putative class action from authors, a lawsuit from The New York Times, and one each from online publishers and other newspapers. The issue in the U.S. is whether or not copying to train an AI qualifies as a “fair use” exception to copyright law. The record label cases against Suno and Udio will involve the same principle.
European copyright law provides “exceptions and limitations” to copyright, rather than fair use, and the 2019 Copyright Directive allows text and data mining unless rightsholders opt-out. In this case, however, GEMA has opted out for all of the works it licenses. (GEMA does not license the lyrics for all the songs in its repertoire, but the lawsuit involves ones for which it does.) This lawsuit aims to clarify the law, and it has the support of some big German songwriters, as well as their publishers.
“Our members’ songs are not free raw material for generative AI systems providers’ business models,” said GEMA CEO Tobias Holzmüller in a statement. “Anyone who wants to use these songs must acquire a license and remunerate the authors fairly. We have developed a license model for this. We are taking and will always take legal action against unlicensed use.”
The lawsuit comes as rightsholders around the world are becoming more concerned about how AI will affect the value of their works, as well as how they should be compensated for how it is trained. At the end of September, GEMA presented a licensing model for generative AI software that would compensate songwriters and publishers. It has also sent letters to AI companies stating they must license GEMA works in order to use them.
Since OpenAI both operates servers and makes content available in Germany, it will presumably have to operate according to German law. This seems clearer than the U.S. system, where fair use often involves considerable uncertainty. However, European countries do not offer rightsholders the opportunity to collect damages as high as they can get in the U.S.
A representative for OpenAI did not immediately return a request for comment.
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: The White Stripes end their copyright lawsuit against Donald Trump following his presidential election victory; prosecutors cite Lil Durk’s lyrics in his murder-for-hire case; the rapper Plies sues Megan Thee Stallion, GloRilla, and others over accusations of a sample-within-a-sample; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: White Stripes Drop Trump Lawsuit
Back in September, amid a wave of artists criticizing Donald Trump for using their music, the White Stripes went a step further. In a scathing copyright lawsuit, Jack White and Meg White accused Trump and his campaign of “flagrant misappropriation” of one of the “most well-known and influential musical works of all time.” In announcing it, White referred to Trump as a “fascist.”
Trending on Billboard
But it seems elections have consequences, even for music litigation.
Just days after Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris, attorneys for the White Stripes asked a federal judge to voluntarily dismiss their case. As is typical in such filings, the motion did not explain the decision to drop the case, and an attorney for the band declined to comment.
Why’d they do it? After all, Trump’s victory did not mean the lawsuit had to be dismissed. But following the end of the election, the juice may simply have not been worth the squeeze.
Other top stories this week…
RAP ON TRIAL, AGAIN – Federal prosecutors unveiled a new indictment against Lil Durk over allegations he ordered his crew to murder rival Quando Rondo. The new charges notably cited the rapper’s lyrics, claiming he had sought to “commercialize” the crime by “rapping about his revenge” in a 2022 track. The use of rap as evidence is controversial, as critics argue it threatens free speech and can sway juries by tapping into racial biases. Some states, like California, have restricted the practice, but it has continued largely unabated elsewhere, most notably in the recent criminal case against Young Thug in Atlanta.
PLIES SUES EVERYBODY – The rapper Plies filed a copyright lawsuit against Megan Thee Stallion, GloRilla, Cardi B and Souja Boy over allegations that the 2024 song “Wanna Be” features an uncleared sample from his 2008 track “Me & My Goons.” The lawsuit claims Megan and GloRilla stole Plies’ material indirectly – that they had used a legally-licensed sample of a Soulja Boy song, which itself illegally borrowed material from “Goons.”
ANOTHER TEKASHI PLEA DEAL – Tekashi 6ix9ine reached a deal with federal prosecutors to resolve his recent arrest over alleged violations of his supervised release stemming from his high-profile 2018 gang case. Under the deal, Tekashi agreed to serve one month in prison followed by several months of house arrest and other restrictions. The deal will also extend Tekashi’s supervised release, which had been set to expire in six months, to a full year following his upcoming prison term.
EDM ABUSE LAWSUIT – Electronic music producer Bassnectar asked a federal judge to dismiss a long-running lawsuit accusing him of sexually abusing three underage girls, arguing that all three alleged victims lied about their ages and had themselves instigated the relationships. The filing came more than three years after the three alleged victims filed their lawsuit, accusing the DJ of using his “power and influence to groom and ultimately sexually victimize underage girls.”
DIDDY UPDATES – The federal judge overseeing Sean “Diddy” Combs’ racketeering and sex trafficking case denied his request for a gag order against his alleged victims and their lawyers, ruling the demand “unprecedented,” “unwarranted” and a potential violation of the First Amendment. Elsewhere in the case, the embattled rapper renewed his calls for release on bail, cited the fact that former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries — another high-profile defendant accused of sex trafficking — was immediately released on a $10 million bond after he was arrested last month.
Less than a week after Donald Trump won the presidential election, the White Stripes have dropped their copyright lawsuit accusing him of using “Seven Nation Army” in a social media post without a license.
The case, filed in the September by Jack White and Meg White, accused Trump and his campaign of “flagrant misappropriation” of one of the “most well-known and influential musical works of all time.” In announcing it, White referred to Trump as a “fascist.”
But in one-sentence motion filed Sunday, attorneys for the rockers quietly dropped the lawsuit. The motion was filed “without prejudice,” meaning the White Stripes could theoretically refile their case at some point in the future, but it still likely means that the case is over for good.
Trending on Billboard
The White Stripes were one of many acts to sharply criticize the Republican candidate for using their music during the 2024 campaign. Beyoncé, Celine Dion, the Foo Fighters, ABBA and Sinead O’Connor‘s estate have all spoken out against the former president’s use of their songs.
White first spoke out on social media — blasting the Trump campaign over a clip, posted to Instagram and X by his deputy director of communications, in which Trump ascends the stairs of a plane as the iconic bass riff of “Seven Nation Army” plays: “Don’t even think about using my music you fascists.”
Two weeks later, he made good on those threats by filing a copyright infringement lawsuit in Manhattan federal court, claiming Trump infringed the band’s rights to the song and harmed the duo by suggesting they support his bid for another presidential term.
“The new association with defendant Trump that defendants have foisted upon plaintiffs through the infringing Trump videos is even more offensive to plaintiffs because plaintiffs vehemently oppose the policies adopted and actions taken by defendant Trump when he was President and those he has proposed for the second term he seeks,” attorneys for the White Stripes wrote.
But on Sunday, following Trump’s victory over VP Kamala Harris last week, attorneys asked the judge overseeing the case to voluntarily dismiss the band’s claims. As is typical in such filings, the motion did not explain the decision to drop the case, and an attorney for the band declined to comment.
Trump’s victory did not mean the lawsuit had to be dismissed. Presidential immunity – a much discussed concept when it comes to Trump’s high-profile criminal cases – would not have barred a case over actions he took before taking office. And even if Trump’s role as president made pursuing him personally more difficult, the case could have continued against his campaign (Donald J. Trump for President 2024 Inc.) and the staffer who posted the clip (Margo McAtee Martin).
But following the end of the election, the juice may simply have not been worth the squeeze. Federal copyright litigation can take years to resolve and is incredibly expensive, particularly when handled by the kind of white shoe attorneys from an elite law firm (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP) that the White Stripes hired.
Jack and Meg could have pursued damages over the clip, including potentially more than $100K in so-called “statutory” damages or even more in “actual” damages that might have offset those costs. But the true goals of the litigation was likely to send a message and to bar further uses of the clip, both of which carry less weight now that the election is over.
Following last week’s vote, White took to Instagram to express his disgust with the outcome: “Trump won the popular vote. End of story. Americans chose a known, obvious fascist and now America will get whatever this wannabe dictator wants to enact from here on in.”
Trump and his campaign are still facing another pending music lawsuit from the estate of Isaac Hayes, which sued over his alleged use of the late singer’s “Hold On, I’m Coming” at rallies and in videos. The case remains in the earliest stages.
The campaign is also still facing a pending copyright case lawsuit from the 2020 election filed by Eddy Grant over the unauthorized use of his iconic “Electric Avenue.” In September, a federal judge ruled that Trump infringed the song by using it; a ruling on how much he owes in damages will be resolved in future proceedings.
A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not return a request for comment on the dismissal of the case.
The federal judge overseeing Sean “Diddy” Combs’ racketeering and sex trafficking case has denied his request for a gag order against his victims and their lawyers, ruling the demand “unprecedented” and “unwarranted.”
Attorneys for the embattled rapper claimed last month that “inflammatory extrajudicial statements” from victims and their attorneys were hurting his chances of a fair trial, but Judge Arun Subramanian ruled Friday (Nov. 8) that such “an extreme remedy” would threaten free speech.
“The court has an affirmative constitutional duty to ensure that Combs receives a fair trial,” the judge wrote. “But this essential … requirement must be balanced with the protections the First Amendment affords to those claiming to be Combs’s victims.”
“The unprecedented relief that Combs seeks on this motion is unwarranted,” the judge added.
Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But in September, he was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of racketeering and sex trafficking over what they say was a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” If convicted on all the charges, he faces a potential sentence of life in prison.
Last month, following the latest wave of civil abuse lawsuits against Combs, his lawyer asked Judge Subramanian to issue a sweeping gag order, claiming the lawyers behind the civil cases had made “shockingly prejudicial and false allegations” about him.
“Mr. Combs has a constitutional right to a fair trial, free from the influence of prejudicial statements in the press,” his attorney Marc Agnifilo wrote in the Oct. 20 motion. “These prospective witnesses and their lawyers have made numerous inflammatory extrajudicial statements aimed at assassinating Mr. Combs’s character in the press.”
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Subramanian ruled that the order Combs was seeking was “incredibly broad” and would have “sweeping First Amendment implications.”
“Not all alleged victims will be participants in this case, and a blanket restriction on their speech will silence individuals who may never have anything to do with the proceedings here,” the judge wrote.
The judge said he had “already taken steps to limit what can be said publicly” about the case and was “open to other tailored proposals that will help ensure a fair trial.” He also said Combs could take specific actions in the various civil lawsuits he was facing if the lawyers in those cases misbehave. But he said he could not do anything close to what Combs was seeking.
“A gag order … is an extreme remedy to be issued only as a last resort,” the judge wrote. “What Combs seeks goes even further.”
Separately on Friday, Combs’ lawyers also renewed their request that he be released from jail on a $50 million bond while he awaits trial. That request has been repeatedly denied since Combs was arrested, but the new filing cited the fact that former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries — another high-profile defendant accused of sex trafficking in New York — was immediately released on a $10 million bond after he was arrested last month.
“The government recently successfully requested pretrial release for two similarly situated defendants, including a CEO accused of sex trafficking dozens of young men, including through witness intimidation,” Agnifilo wrote in the new motion. “The conditions of release requested in Jeffries pale in comparison to the conditions proposed by Mr. Combs here.”
Federal prosecutors are citing Lil Durk’s lyrics in the criminal case accusing him of ordering his OTF associates to murder rapper Quando Rondo in a 2022 shooting, arguing he sought to “commercialize” the crime by “rapping about his revenge.”
Two weeks after the Chicago rapper (Durk Banks) was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, prosecutors unveiled a new indictment Friday over the 2022 attack at a Los Angeles gas station, which left Rondo (Tyquian Bowman) unscathed but saw friend Lul Pab (Saviay’a Robinson) killed in the crossfire.
The updated indictment added two additional felony counts against Durk on top of the original conspiracy charge, including another murder-for-hire count and a firearms count. It also consolidated Durk’s case with similar charges filed against several of his associates.
Trending on Billboard
But most notably, the amended charges included a brand new allegation: That Durk had directly referenced the shooting in a 2022 song: “Following the attempted murder of [Rondo] and the murder of [Lul Pab], defendant Banks sought to commercialize [Lul Pab]’s death by rapping about his revenge on [Rondo].”
The feds claim that the lyrics to Durk’s song — a track called “Wonderful Wayne & Jackie Boy” — make direct reference to a news clip filmed shortly after the shooting, in which Rondo can be heard screaming “no, no!” after seeing Lul Pab’s dead body.
“Told me they got an addy (go, go)/ Got location (go, go)/ Green light (go, go, go, go, go),” Durk raps in the lyrics referenced in the indictment. “Look on the news and see your son/You screamin’, “No, no” (pu–y).”
The use of rap music as evidence in criminal cases is controversial, as critics argue it threatens free speech and can sway juries by tapping into racial biases. Over the past few years, the practice has drawn backlash from the music industry and led to efforts by lawmakers to stop it. But it has continued largely unabated, most notably in the recent criminal case against Young Thug in Atlanta, in which prosecutors made extensive use of his music.
An attorney for Durk did not immediately return a request for comment.
Like the earlier charges, the new indictment claims that Durk’s Only The Family was not merely a well-publicized group of Chicago rappers, but a “hybrid organization” that also functioned as a criminal gang to carry out violent acts “at the direction” of Durk.
Prosecutors say one of those acts was the 2022 attempted killing of Rondo, allegedly carried out in retaliation for the 2020 killing of rapper King Von (Dayvon Bennett), a close friend of Durk’s.
“Banks put a monetary bounty out for an individual with whom Banks was feuding named T.B.,” referring to Rondo by his initials. “Banks ordered T.B.’s murder and the hitmen used Banks and OTF-related finances to carry out the murder.”
In addition to Durk, prosecutors have also charged several alleged OTF members — Kavon London Grant, Deandre Dontrell Wilson and Asa Houston — as well as two other alleged Chicago gang members named Keith Jones and David Brian Lindsey.
If convicted on all three counts he’s now facing, Durk is facing a potential sentence of life in prison.
Electronic music producer Bassnectar is asking a federal judge to dismiss a long-running civil lawsuit accusing him of sexually abusing three underage girls, arguing that all three alleged victims lied about their ages and had themselves instigated the relationships.
In a motion filed Monday (Nov. 4) in Nashville federal court, attorneys for the DJ (Lorin Ashton) argued that the case did not need to be decided by a jury because the discovery process — the investigation of evidence during a civil lawsuit — had revealed that there was no merit to the allegations.
“Discovery has confirmed that when each of the plaintiffs first contacted defendant, they lied about not only their ages, but also their level of education, as well as their work and life experiences,” his lawyers write. “Each plaintiff admitted to deceiving defendant into believing that she was over the age of eighteen.”
Ashton’s lawyers also say the discovery process has also made “crystal clear” that the DJ “never forced — in any way — plaintiffs into having a sexual relationship with him.”
“To the contrary, the record demonstrates that the pursuit of a sexual relationship between the parties was instigated by Plaintiffs, each of whom was always free to continue it or end it,” his attorneys write. “Plaintiffs simply cannot prove that they were coerced or that they felt that they had no other choice but to engage in a sexual relationship with Defendant.”
The filing comes more than three years after the three women — Rachel Ramsbottom, Alexis Bowling, and Jenna Houston — filed their lawsuit, accusing Ashton of using his “power and influence to groom and ultimately sexually victimize underage girls.”
The lawsuit, which accuses Ashton of sex trafficking, child pornography and negligence, claims that the star would invite minors to his shows, bring them to a hotel room and provide “large sums of cash and other items of value” in exchange for sex.
Last month, Ashton’s attorneys moved for “summary judgment,” meaning the judge would rule on the case without submitting it to a jury. They cited, among many other arguments, that state law enforcement had investigated Ramsbottom’s accusations and federal authorities had looked into Houston’s — and that prosecutors had declined to file charges in both instances.
Responding to that motion last month, attorneys for the accusers blasted Ashton for seeking to dismiss the case, claiming he had made damning admissions during depositions, including “knowing full well” that Ramsbottom was under 18. They also argued that he had clearly “groomed” them in such a way that facilitated the abuse.
“He entered their teenaged lives as a famous celebrity, engendered their trust, and made it such that his withdrawal of affection or the threat thereof, which the plaintiffs now understand to be abusive, caused each to continue their interaction with defendant,” their lawyers wrote at the time.
With Monday’s reply from Ashton’s attorneys, the case is now in the hands of the judge, who will decide in the coming weeks or months whether to order a jury trial or dismiss the accusations. Attorneys for both sides declined to comment.
Rapper Plies is suing Megan Thee Stallion, GloRilla, Cardi B and Souja Boy for copyright infringement over allegations that the 2024 song “Wanna Be” features an uncleared sample from his 2008 track “Me & My Goons.”
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles federal court, says the Megan and GloRilla stole Plies’ material indirectly – that they used a legally-licensed sample of a Soulja Boy song that itself illegally borrowed from “Goons.”
“Defendant Soulja Boy authorized Megan thee Stallion and GloRilla to sample [his song,]” lawyers for Plies write. “[Wanna Be] incorporates substantial elements of the copyrighted material underlying ‘Me & My Goons,’ without authorization from plaintiffs.”
Trending on Billboard
“Wanna Be,” released by Megan and GloRilla in early April, debuted at No. 11 on the Hot 100. A remix, featuring Cardi, was released in late May. The song features a prominent sample of Soulja Boy’s 2010 track “Pretty Boy Swag,” which spent 16 weeks on the chart that summer.
Plies (Algernod Washington), best known for his 2007 singles “Shawty” and “Hypnotized,” names all four stars (Megan Pete, Gloria Woods, Belcalis Almanzar and Deandre Way) as defendants in the lawsuit, as well as various companies and labels allegedly involved in the song.
Reps for the defendants did not immediately return requests for comment.
Lawsuits like the one Plies filed Wednesday – claiming that a legal sample featured an unlicensed sample – sound strange but aren’t uncommon. In the modern music industry, all samples in major releases are strictly cleared, and even borderline interpolations are often licensed to avoid any risk of litigation. But copyrighted material featured within the sampled songs can be trickier to identify.
Last month, a lawsuit filed by Barry White’s estate claimed that Future and Metro Boomin’s “Like That” sampled from a 1980s hip-hop song that had ripped off White’s music. And in May, a little known New Orleans group sued Beyoncé for the same thing over a sample of Big Freedia featured in “Break My Soul,” though they dropped the case several months later. White’s case remains pending; the case against Beyoncé was quickly dropped.
Read the entire lawsuit here: