Legal
Page: 7
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.
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:
Rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine has reached a deal with federal prosecutors after his recent arrest over alleged violations of his supervised release, agreeing to spend a month in prison and another under house arrest.
The rapper was charged last week with breaking the terms of his years-long probation, which stems from a 2018 plea deal he struck with prosecutors over his involvement with a gang called Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods.
In a letter to the judge filed Tuesday, federal prosecutors said Tekashi had agreed to admit to the probation violations and serve one month in prison, followed by a month of home incarceration, a month of less-restrictive home detention, and then finally a month of curfew.
Trending on Billboard
The deal will also extend Tekashi’s supervised release — which had been set to expire in six months – to a full year following his release from prison. The rapper’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment.
Once a rising star in the world of hip-hop and social media, Tekashi was charged in November 2018 with federal racketeering and murder conspiracy charges over his involvement with a New York street gang called Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods. Prosecutors claimed the gang “wreaked havoc on New York City” by “engaging in brazen acts of violence.”
But just a day after being arrested, Tekashi cut a deal with federal prosecutors to flip on his crew in return for lenience. Taking the witness stand during a 2019 trial, he offered detailed and frank testimony about his involvement in the gang and his former gang mates.
Under the deal with prosecutors, Tekashi was sentenced to two years in prison and five years of supervised release and ordered to serve 1,000 hours of community service and pay a $35,000 fine.
The sentence was set to run until July 2020, but Tekashi was released early, in April 2020, after his attorneys argued that the coronavirus pandemic posed an increased risk to him because he has asthma.
Last week, prosecutors alleged that Tekashi had violated his release conditions on numerous occasions, including by traveling to Las Vegas without permission, failing to submit for drug testing and testing positive for methamphetamine.
At his arraignment hearing, the rapper pleaded not guilty and his attorney argued that the failed drug test was from the use of prescribed Adderall. But the judge was unswayed and ordered him jailed until his next court date, citing a “broader pattern” of misconduct during parole that the judge said suggests a “full spectrum disregard for the law.”
Following Tuesday’s agreement, the judge ordered both sides to appear at a hearing next week (Nov. 12) to explain the plea deal and why the sentence “reflects the proper sentence for these violations.”
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: Young Thug ends his years-long YSL RICO case with a guilty plea that results in no prison time; UMG accuses distributor TuneCore of “industrial-scale copyright infringement”; Ed Sheeran wins a case over “Let’s Get It On,”; Metro Boomin faces a sexual assault lawsuit; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Young Thug Heads Home
And just like that, it was all over for Young Thug. More than two years after the Grammy-winning rapper was arrested as part of a sweeping Atlanta gang case, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve just 15 years probation with no prison time — a stunning end to a legal saga that rocked the music industry.
Trending on Billboard
Pitting prosecutors in America’s rap capital against one of hip-hop’s biggest stars, the case against Thug and his alleged “YSL” gang raised big questions — about the fairness of the criminal justice system; about violent personas in modern hip-hop; and about prosecutors using rap lyrics as evidence.
Thug, a chart-topping rapper and producer who helped shape the sound of hip-hop in the 2010s, was accused of being the kingpin of a violent gang that had wrought “havoc” on the Atlanta area for nearly a decade. But the case was a mess from the start, featuring endless witness lists, procedural missteps, a jailhouse stabbing and a bizarre episode that saw a judge removed from the case.
How did Young Thug go from that mess — the trial had no end in sight and was set to run well into 2025 — to walking away a free man? Go read my deep dive on the YSL endgame to find out.
Other top stories this week…
“RAMPANT PIRACY” – Universal Music Group filed a lawsuit against TuneCore and parent company Believe over allegations of “massive” copyright infringement, accusing the digital distributor of serving as a “hub” for the widespread dissemination of illegal copies of songs on streaming platforms and social media services, including those by Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, Kendrick Lamar, Lady Gaga and many others. Seeking a whopping $500 million in damages, UMG claims TuneCore pursued “rapid growth” of its DIY distribution services by turning a blind eye to “rampant piracy” among its users: “Believe is a company built on industrial-scale copyright infringement,” said the lawsuit. In a statement, Believe and TuneCore said they “strongly refute these claims” and would “fight them” in court.
“MUSICAL BUILDING BLOCKS” – Ed Sheeran won a ruling at a federal appeals court confirming that his “Thinking Out Loud” did not infringe the copyright to Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” effectively ending one of several cases over the sonic similarities between the two hits. The lawsuit argued that Sheeran copied a chord progression and rhythm from Gaye’s iconic track, but the appeals court said the two songs share only “fundamental musical building blocks” that are “ubiquitous in pop music” — and that granting a “monopoly” on them to any single songwriter would “threaten to stifle creativity.”
METRO ALLEGATIONS – Superstar producer Metro Boomin was hit with a civil lawsuit over allegations that he raped and impregnated a woman named Vanessa LeMaistre during a drug-and-booze-fueled incident at a recording studio in 2016. The lawsuit claimed that the alleged assault was referenced in a song he produced — a surprising accusation, given that Metro does not write lyrics or rap himself and the lyrics in question were by 21 Savage and Offset.
TEKASHI ARRESTED – Tekashi 6ix9ine (Daniel Hernandez) was arrested and charged over allegations that he violated a plea agreement struck with prosecutors when he infamously agreed to testify against his former Brooklyn gangmates back in 2018. The provocative rapper had just six months left on the five years of supervised release he secured under that deal, but prosecutors accused him of traveling to Las Vegas without permission and failing a drug test for meth. Tekashi denied the charges at an arraignment hearing, but the judge — the same one who signed off on the plea deal — cited a “full spectrum disregard for the law” and ordered him held until his next court date later this month.
MEGAN THEE PLAINTIFF – Megan Thee Stallion sued a YouTuber and social media personality named Milagro Gramz (Milagro Elizabeth Cooper), accusing her of “churning out falsehoods” about the criminal case stemming from the 2020 incident in which Tory Lanez shot Megan in the foot. Calling Gramz a “mouthpiece and puppet” for Lanez, the superstar seemed intent on using the case as a warning shot to other bloggers who allegedly share false information about the high-profile case: “Enough is enough.”
“OPAQUE AND UNFAIR” – A federal appeals court ruled that Live Nation and Ticketmaster must face a class action claiming they abuse their dominance to charge “extraordinarily high” prices to hundreds of thousands of ticket buyers. In doing so, the court rejected Live Nation’s argument that fans had signed agreements that required them to resolve disputes via private arbitration. The court not only called those agreements “unconscionable and unenforceable” but also “opaque and unfair”; “poorly drafted and riddled with typos”; and “so dense, convoluted and internally contradictory to be borderline unintelligible.”
CASSIE VIDEO CLASH – Prosecutors in the case against Sean “Diddy” Combs told a federal judge that they had not been behind the leaking of the infamous 2016 surveillance video showing the rapper assaulting his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, arguing that such accusations were merely gamesmanship by Diddy’s defense team with the goal of trying to “suppress a damning piece of evidence.”
DIDDY ACCUSER UNMASKED – A federal judge in one of the many civil cases against Combs ruled that one of his accusers cannot use a “Jane Doe” pseudonym, saying her right to avoid “public scrutiny” and “embarrassment” does not trump Diddy’s right to defend himself against such “heinous” allegations. The ruling is not binding on other judges, but it could influence how they handle the issue of numerous other cases that have been filed against Combs by Doe plaintiffs.
MADLIB v. EGON – Hip-hop producer Madlib filed a lawsuit against his former manager Eothen “Egon” Alapatt over allegations of “rank self-dealing,” claiming the exec abused his role to claim undue profits from Madlib’s music and commit other alleged misdeeds. The case claims that Egon believes he can “keep profiting from Madlib work and goodwill because there is nothing Madlib can do about it” and is demanding that the artist “buy him out” if he wants to end the relationship.
British prosecutors say they have been given a file of evidence from police about alleged sexual offenses by comedian Russell Brand and are considering whether to charge him. The Crown Prosecution Service said late Saturday (Nov. 2) that “we have been passed a file by the police to consider a charging decision in this case. […]