EMI: Hands handed arse; tries to save face

It's been a while since we heard about Guy Hands, the man who borrowed large sums of cash to buy EMI and then discovered he wasn't very good at running a record label.

He's been in court this week, trying to blame his failures at EMI on CitiGroup, in a legal case which was basically Hands' Terra Firma going "waah waah, why didn't they tell us".

The fraud case was supposed to last into July - rather like Euro 2016 - but ended somewhat abruptly with a humiliating defeat - rather like England's Euro 2016.

Hands climbed down:

“Terra Firma confirms it unreservedly withdraws its allegations of fraud,” David Wolfson – standing in for lead QC Anthony Grabiner – told the hastily convened court. Terra Firma will also pay the costs of the US bank, likely to run into millions of pounds.

Hands, who had been claiming at least £1.5bn from Citi, had been questioned by the bank’s lawyer for the previous two days, and his evidence had been expected to last into next week. He had faced repeated questions about his recollection of events in 2007 when Terra Firma took over EMI just before the credit crunch and had been accused of having a “hazy memory”.

At one stage during his questioning of Hands, Mark Howard QC, representing Citi, said: “The problem is, Mr Hands, your story is shifting and it is impossible to reconcile these different versions.”

Much as EMI had relied on releasing poorly-conceived best of 'special edition' collections, Hands was trying to sell a bunch of remixes of old material, but the court wasn't really buying.

His case having crumbled underneath him, Hands was left trying to whistle a brave tune:

Hands, who was not in court, said the latest claim had been brought in good faith. “However, it has become evident that our documentation of the fast-moving and complex events, and memories of these events after nine years, are no longer sufficient to meet the high demands of proof required for a fraud claim in court,” he said.

“The matter is now closed,” said Hands, saying that the Terra Firma business he founded in 2003 was looking to the future. “We have an exciting portfolio of companies, a talented and experienced team, supportive and loyal investors and €1bn of capital to invest,” he said.

It's funny, isn't it, that he hadn't noticed he couldn't remember all that "fast-moving" stuff until he'd been taken to pieces on the stand.

And while Hands might believe the matter is closed, that isn't entirely true. Terra Firma have agreed to pick up all of Citi's costs. That Billion of capital might be whittled down a bit in the coming weeks.

To be alive at this time

Fighting for scraps on the edge of fame:

Real Housewives Of Cheshire star Dawn Ward found guilty of assaulting pop star Sinitta

Justice has been done, though:

Dawn, a cast member of the ITVBe series, stood quietly in the dock as District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe told her that she would be bound over in the sum of £500 for three months and ordered her to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. No costs were awarded.

ITV Be, the cruellest injoke of a channel name (you wonder if they brainstormed other dismissive titles, like ITV Who? and ITV Second String). Still, the thought of having a £500 fine hanging over her will focus the mind; that's going to knock out the earnings from about six series of the programme.

What were the pair fighting over?

Yeah. Nobody cares.

Good news for Sly Stone

A court has awarded Sly Stone five million dollars in lost royalties.

Let's just hope his former lawyer and manager held on to the cash so they can give it back...

Ashanti gets cross-examined by her own stalker

In a 'oh, Justice, you have some explaining to do' event, somehow the New York courts allowed Ashanti to wind up being cross-examined by a man already convicted of stalking of her in a trial to see if he was violating the order of protection put in place after that conviction.

So: in order to get the courts to uphold the rules stopping another person from contacting you, the courts decide to give that person a chance to ask you questions under oath in an open court room.

Oh, Justice. You have some explaining to do.

No more Plant stalk

Robert Plant got a restraining order a couple of weeks back, to stop a woman from coming within 100 yards of him. Now, he's gone back to court and had that upped to 300 yards.

I'm sure it's reassuring to Plant to have this distance, but 300 yards still doesn't seem like very much - it's less than a fifth of a mile which, with the wind in the right direction, would be enough for Plant to hear someone shouting "look over here, Robert".

The distance seems to be arbitrary and short - it's roughly the distance between Covent Garden and Leicester Square. Is there a set of rules for working out how far the safe distance should be set at?

Pete Doherty: What is he like?

Two possible Pete Dohertys presented their face to the world yesterday.

The Guardian had a little fawn over him, as the promotional work for the film he's in starts to roll:

Now the enfant terrible of British rock has reincarnated once again as Doherty the actor. The singer has just finished shooting his first film in France, where he has attained cult status, not just as a musical star but as a poète maudit, a tragic literary figure and tortured soul.
[...]
Doherty is extraordinarily popular in France, where fans queue for hours to see him perform, and forgive him when – as frequently happens – he does not show.

Verheyde believes it is because he is seen through his lyrics as a "literary figure, a poet". Others liken him to the Gauloises-puffing, hard-drinking Serge Gainsbourg, seen as a talented but ultimately tragic figure. "Charlotte admitted Pete did remind her a bit of her father," said Verheyde.

It should be pointed out that Verheyde is not merely trying to promote her film, but to persuade Doherty's fans to cough up cash to finish off the making of the movie. Playing into the myth that Doherty is a tortured soul who only you understand is as much a part of her pitch as Tescos sticking up Half Price Beer signs is part of theirs.

But could it be true? Are we in danger of pegging Doherty as some sort of Mr-Bean-reads-Rimbaud figure when, in fact, he is really the greatest mind of our age?

Let's look at yesterday's other Doherty story, on Holy Moly:

Pete was at London's Snaresbrook Crown Court yesterday on charge for cocaine possession, to which he pleaded guilty. He's probably on his way to jail - for the third time - but doesn't really seem to give a shit about that, larking about outside the court and stealing his barrister's wig so he could take a hilarious photo of himself on his phone.

But, hey, apparently people queue up to see him in France, right?

Dave McCabe granted conditional bail

Dave McCabe out of The Zutons has been granted conditional bail at a hearing yesterday. McCabe pleaded not guilty to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm following a row outside the Korova club in Liverpool. He's accused of breaking a man's nose; he'll be back in court during the week of September 20th.

Jackson can't be used for any old charity

A US court has told that a charity to stop using the name 'Heal The World', the name of Michael Jackson's defunct charity, and Michael Jackson's face, the face of the defunct Michael Jackson.

The court agreed with the Jackson estate that this might confuse people - after all, if anyone is going to involve the ghost of Michael Jackson in a half-arsed charity, it's going to be them, right?

Pink Floyd sue EMI for allowing people to not buy the rubbish ones

You've got to love the irony: for years, the major labels have been trying to find ways of forcing people to buy digital music in bundles, only for Pink Floyd to get upset with EMI for, erm, allowing people to buy individual tracks:

"Pink Floyd [are] well-known for performing seamless pieces," said Robert Howe, the band's lawyer, at a High Court hearing yesterday. "Many of the songs blend into each other." To reflect this, Pink Floyd's renegotiated 1999 contract "expressly prohibits" EMI from selling songs out of context. And yet, Howe argues, EMI "[permit] individual tracks to be downloaded online and ... [therefore allow] albums not to be sold in their original configuration."

EMI's defence is the 1999 contract didn't even consider digital downloads. Seriously? Nobody at either EMI or on Pink Floyd's team considered selling songs online in 1999? No wonder the old labels are struggling to cope.

It's not clear why Pink Floyd are desperate to make people give them money for songs their audience don't actually want, but legal experts suggest it might be a mixture of "arrogrance, ego, and old-fashioned greed."

Canadian justice waits on Noel

Last week, the guy who pushed Noel Gallagher over on stage was due to hear his sentence.

In the end, though, there was no sentence passed, as Noel Gallagher announced that he wanted to make a witness impact statement.

But prosecutor Ruth Kleinhenz on Friday requested an adjournment that would allow Mr. Gallagher to travel to Toronto from the United Kingdom to read his statement. As well, Ms. Kleinhenz said she needed to study a pre-sentencing report.

Reluctantly, Mr. Justice Richard Schneider agreed, calling the delay “unfortunate in the extreme.”

It's far from clear why, if making an impact statement was so important to Gallagher, he couldn't have turned up on the day.

The pushing man, Danny Sullivan, is now left hanging - not literally, the Canadian courts aren't that illiberal, while Noel gets his butt over to Toronto. The prosecution had been seeking a delay until April, when Noel was hoping to fit turning up in court into his busy schedule of... well, all those things that Noel fills his day with.

Interestingly, Liam hasn't asked to share with the court how he felt when he went running away like an elephant spying a mouse.

Noel is apparently planning to try and sue Danny Sullivan for two million dollars - money that he knows Sullivan can't possibly have, and which would be better supporting his family with. (If Gallagher really must sue someone, wouldn't the people who were supposed to be providing his security be a more obvious point for the lawsuits to be heading?)

Everyone - except Noel - will be back in court tomorrow to set a new schedule.

[Thanks to Alice P for the story]

Men At Work weren't prepared for that

Bad news for Men At Work - an Australian court has just found them guilty of plagiarism.

And not just any old plagiarism. Oh, no - Men At Work have stolen from the Girl Guides:

The Australian band Men at Work are facing a big legal bill after a court ruled it had plagiarised a Girl Guides' song in its 1983 hit, Down Under.

Although, actually, the song doesn't belong to the Girl Guides at all; it's actually owned by Larrikin Music.

They're seeking between 40% and 60% of the earnings from the song.

The big question is why the company didn't come forward until over twenty years after the song was released. Perhaps its one of those where you go "this reminds me of something... ooh, what is it?" For a couple of decades.

The court decided that Down Under borrows a little too heavily from Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree.

Still, the sorry story does allow the BBC News website to explain the song as if it was part of the court report:

A number one in Australia, the US and the UK, the song tells the story of an Australian backpacker touring the world.

It pays tribute to "a land down under where beer does flow and men chunder".

The song also refers to the popular Australian food spread Vegemite.

"I said 'Do you speak my language?', he just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich," says an Australian traveller in Brussels.

Now, in other news, upset following a cake being left out in the rain by persons unknown. The cake's owner is said to be struggling to come to terms with the event, a situation worsened as she is unlikely to have the recipe again.

Xiu Xiu Camel suit stubbed

Back at the end of 2007, Rolling Stone ran a piece about indie bands which looked oddly like a Camel cigarettes advert. There was an angry letter at the time, but Xiu Xiu and Fucked Up decided to take it further by launching a class action lawsuit.

Somewhat surprisingly, the case has been dismissed by Justice Robert Dondero on the grounds that he's apparently never heard of advertorials:

The justices found no evidence that R.J. Reynolds, Camel's parent company, influenced Rolling Stone's editorial content or decisions. What's more, the justices wrote, Rolling Stone's main purpose is publishing a magazine -- noncommercial speech -- not selling cigarettes.

"Simply put, there is no legal precedent for converting noncommercial speech into commercial speech merely based on its proximity to the latter," Justice Robert Dondero wrote. "There is also no precedent for converting a noncommercial speaker into a commercial speaker in the absence of any direct interest in the product or service being sold."

So, legally and in the US at least, slapping a load of text in a heavily-sponsored stand alone pull-out isn't meant to use the value of the subjects of the "non-commercial" text to add lustre to the sponsor.

Presumably, Justice Dondero would therefore be incredibly laid-back if someone ran a magazine about him sponsored entirely by massage parlours and escort agencies.

The complaint, surely, wasn't about 'being near some ads', it was about 'being in a sponsored section'; the judge seems to have failed to grasp the difference.

Still, it's handy for Rolling Stone to be reminded that its main purpose is the articles it runs, and not the adverts it carries. Let's hope that news gets back to Rolling Stone.

Thomas award reduced from offensive to merely egregious

The award in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset has been reduced by District Judge Michael Davis from $1.92 million to "just" $54,000. Davis was unimpressed with the original level of the award:

“The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music,” Davis wrote. “Moreover, although plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must bear some relation to actual damages.”

$54k is still silly money, but let's at least be delighted that a judge has noted that the RIAA's current claims are unjustifiable. He could have reduced the figure even further - the minimum amount per song allowed by law is $750 (even that is a stupid figure) and there is a question as to why Judge Davis decided $2,250 isn't too much to deter in itself.

Thomas-Rasset says she still can't afford the lower amount; the RIAA can apply for yet another trial if they object to the judgement.

Alan Ellis: Oink man not guilty

The not guilty verdict in the case of Alan Ellis, found not guilty of conspiracy to defraud in charges relating from his Oink website, isn't entirely comforting news for the music industry.

The Crown Prosecution Service and the Police are also trying to put a brave face on things:

Chief Superintendent Mark Braithwaite, head of crime operations for Cleveland Police, said: "This has been a fair investigation.

"The jury has been presented with all the evidence and we abide by their decision."

The Crown Prosecution Service defended the decision to prosecute Mr Ellis.

"We believe we were wholly right to bring the prosecution against Mr Ellis and that there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that evidence was put before the jury," a spokesman said.

Perhaps someone should be asking why the public purse was funding this case, and not the copyright industry. This seems to be the sort of thing that civil courts are set up for. If EMI and Warners want to piss away their own money trying to shore up an outdated business model, that's their choice. At a time when public spending is facing a big squeeze, I don't see that the State should be joining in the cash-pissing.

Record companies still face price-fixing allegations

The American courts - Second Circuit Court of Appeals, to be precise - have reinstated a class action against the majors alleging price-fixing in the early days of download sales in the US.

The complainants point to how downloads were the same price across the two favoured legal services; the defendants insist that's just how markets work. The case had been tossed, but now it's back, and heading for a proper hearing.

Price-fixing? The record labels? It's not like they don't have form for it.

Leona Lewis attacker detained under Mental Health Act

The Leona Lewis fan who hit her during a book signing has been detained after pleading guilty to common assault. Peter Kowalczyk is a man with schizophrenia; he has been detained for an indeterminate period of time.

Noel attacker pleads guilty

Daniel Sullivan, the guy who pushed Noel Gallagher over on stage in Toronto, has pleaded guilty to assault.

His defence told the court he couldn't remember anything about the incident, except clambering over the fence. Sullivan was drunk at the time, which might explain why he never quite made it the double by pushing Liam over as well.

He'll be back in court in February for sentencing.

Eminem's publishers turn up in court

It's been a while since we've heard from the publishers of Eminem's music, who seem to be objecting to the presence of Eminem's tracks on legal download services. After a long period of bubbling discontent, they've finally got Apple and Eminem's label into court in what seems to be an attempt to legally enforce the ability of the tail to wag the dog:

Publishers Eight Mile Style, along with an affiliated company, Martin Affiliated LLC, allege that Apple had no right to sell the songs on iTunes. The company also says that Eminem's contract with Aftermath Records did not give Apple any rights to market his songs online.

The idea that a label can't market a track digitally seems to be an odd one, and while it's clearly a nonsense, it's nice to see a record label having to defend itself in the face of an irritating, grasping sort of legal action.

And, clearly, Eight Mile Style have some explaining to do as well:

Speaking in court in Detroit, Apple lawyer Glenn Pomerantz told US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor that Aftermath Records have the rights to use Eminem's recordings as they wish, and added that despite taking Apple to court, Eight Mile Style had still cashed royalty cheques and hadn't asked Apple to stop selling Eminem's music, reports Associated Press.

Eminem, notes NME, was not in court for the business. The case is expected to last a week. Or possibly forever.

Paris Hilton fights poorly-drawn birthday cards

Yes, she was briefly trying to be a pop star. Remember?

Anyway, while no fan of the poorly-drawn celebrity birthday card sub-genre, some people seem to enjoy them. Paris Hilton, not so much - she tried to stop Hallmark making one with a bad drawing of her on.

The case went her way; but Hallmark aren't taking it lying down. They're insisting that poorly drawn card with bad impressions in are a free speech issue, and asking for the whole case to go back to court.

Coldplay settle

The lawsuit which saw Joe Satriani claim to have written one of Coldplay's songs has ended. It looks like a deal has been done which leaves Coldplay admitting doing nothing wrong, but Satriani satisfied with the outcome. It's all a secret, though. So say nothing, right?