BTS confirm that they will carry out military service in South Korea
Hybe's BigHit Music has announced that the seven members of BTS will enlist in full military service in South Korea after more than two years of debate over whether or not they should be granted an exemption.

In a statement issued this morning, the label says: "BigHit Music is proud to announce today that the members of BTS are currently moving forward with plans to fulfil their military service. After the phenomenal concert to support Busan's bid for the World Expo 2030 [this weekend], and as each individual embarks on solo endeavours, it's the perfect time and the members of BTS are honoured to serve".

The oldest member of the group, Jin, will be the first to enlist in the military after he completes promotional activities for his recent solo album later this month.

Under South Korean law, all able-bodied men must begin serving around two years in the military at some point between the ages of eighteen and 28. There are formal exemptions for athletes and classical musicians with an international following, but nothing for pop acts.

To date, no members of the group have enlisted, despite Jin turning 28 two years ago. This is thanks to a change in the law that allowed some pop artists (mainly - some argue only - the members of BTS) to defer the start of their military service until the age of 30. But Jin is now 30, and that means he must enlist by December under current rules.

"Since the creation of BTS over ten years ago, the band has risen to international success, broken records, and catapulted K-pop into the global stratosphere", the statement continues. "BigHit Music has focused to the milestone moment when it would be possible to respect the needs of the country and for these healthy young men to serve with their countrymen, and that's now".

"Jin will initiate the process as soon as his schedule for his solo release is concluded at the end of October", it goes on. "He will then follow the enlistment procedure of the Korean government. Other members of the group plan to carry out their military service based on their own individual plans. Both the company and the members of BTS are looking forward to reconvening as a group again around 2025 following their service commitment".

Military service is a big issue in South Korea and public opinion regarding the possibility of BTS not doing it has not always been on their side - although it has shifted more recently. The country's parliament has also been divided, which is why it has taken years to reach a definitive decision on the matter.

There have been various proposals from politicians suggesting alternatives to military service for the BTS members - most recently a bill put forward by politician Kim Young-bae, which would have allowed the pop stars to carry out activities in the national interest other than actually serving in the military.

However, responding to that bill, Defence Minister Lee Jong-sup stated earlier this month that the government felt that it was "desirable that members of BTS carry out their mandatory military service".

With time running out and the possibility of an exception being made for the members of BTS appearing more unlikely, BigHit and parent company Hybe have seemingly made the decision to get ahead of any final political resolution of the matter.

Today's statement concludes: "With the release of their first anthology album earlier this year it opened the path to allow the members to take some time to explore individual projects. As part of the Hybe family, we support and encourage our artists and are beyond proud that they will each now have time to explore their unique interests and do their duty by being of service to the country they call home".

What this means for the future of BTS is unclear. When the group announced that they would be focussing on solo projects for the time being earlier this year, that was taken as an implication the band itself was going on hiatus, possibly so they could enlist in the military. Although they and their management insisted that BTS was still a going concern.

The military service obligations in South Korea have long been an issue for the country's boybands - with efforts to keep things going via shrunk down line-ups or solo projects while other members do their stint in the army not always particularly successful.

BTS arguably benefitted from this, because it cleared the way for them to gain success domestically. However, the huge success they then achieved globally means BTS are not just another K-pop band. Indeed, in 2019 it was estimated that the group was delivering $4.65 billion per year to the country's economy. Hence why the big debate around their military service has been so heated.

It remains to be seen if the group will be able to maintain their status as the country's biggest pop act while each band member completes their military obligations - or if another act will succeed in taking over during the partial down time. Right now, BigHit is insisting that "there's much more yet to come in the years ahead from BTS".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Ed Sheeran's legal team has another go at getting Thinking Out Loud song-theft lawsuit dismissed
Ed Sheeran's legal team last week had one last go at trying to stop one of the song-theft lawsuits relating to his song 'Thinking Out Loud' from proceeding to trial, urging the judge overseeing the case to reconsider a recent decision he made about the copyright dispute.

It's alleged that Sheeran ripped off the Marvin Gaye song 'Let's Get It On' when he wrote 'Thinking Out Loud'. Based on those allegations, the estate of 'Let's Get It On' co-writer Ed Townsend sued Sheeran for copyright infringement. And once that litigation was underway, a company called Structured Asset Sales, which also has a stake in the 'Let's Get It On' copyright, filed its own lawsuit.

It was on the latter legal battle that judge Louis Stanton recently made ruling.

The Sheeran team had urged the judge to dismiss the SAS lawsuit via summary judgement, arguing that the elements shared by 'Thinking Out Loud' and 'Let's Get It On' are common musical segments that are not protected by copyright in isolation. That was an argument also used in another song theft legal battle involving Sheeran, the one in the UK over his song 'Shape Of You'.

In a ruling last month, Stanton noted that both sides in the dispute agree that the shared elements are "commonplace and unprotectable". However, the real dispute is over how those elements are combined in the two songs. So the key question is as follows: is the way Gaye and Townsend combined those elements in 'Let's Get It On' protected by copyright?

That question, Stanton concluded, can only be answered by a jury. "The law does not support Sheeran's contention that the combination of 'Let's Get It On's chord progression and harmonic rhythm is insufficiently original to warrant it copyrightable", he wrote in his ruling last month.

"There is no bright-line rule that the combination of two unprotectable elements is insufficiently numerous to constitute an original work", he added. "Moreover, where, as here, the parties' experts disagree as to whether a particular musical element is original, summary judgment is inappropriate".

Which means that "although the two musical compositions are not identical, a jury could find that the overlap between the songs' combination of chord progression and harmonic rhythm is very close. Accordingly, questions remain that are not resolvable by summary judgment, but require trial".

However, according to Billboard, Sheeran's legal team have urged Stanton to re-think that conclusion, arguing that if the outcome of this case is that the way Gaye and Townsend combined some common musical elements is protected by copyright, that will "strangle creation".

Lawyer Don Zakarin writes: "Affording copyright protection to a combination of only two unprotectable basic musical building blocks, such as the ones at issue here, would undermine a central purpose of copyright law - which is to encourage the creation of new works - and would instead strangle creation".

"No one can or should be able to claim the exclusive right to a chord progression and the unremarkable and unprotectable manner in which it is performed", the Sheeran legal team continues. "Defendants respectfully submit that the order overlooked these critically important legal considerations".

It seems unlikely that Stanton will change his mind at this point and issue the summary judgement dismissing the SAS case. Though it's worth a try I guess. If that doesn't happen, Sheeran's lawyers have asked for permission to file a fast-track appeal in relation to the lawsuit.

Responding to the latest development in this legal battle, SAS owner David Pullman told Billboard that the new legal filing from Team Sheeran was simply "confirmation and validation of just how important [last month's] decision was", adding that he "looks forward to more success in this case".

--------------------------------------------------

Judge again says Maria Schneider v YouTube case likely needs to go to trial
The Californian judge overseeing the class action lawsuit being pursued by musician Maria Schneider against YouTube has again said that he doesn't feel it would be appropriate to dismiss the case via summary judgement, reckoning there are key questions that can only be answered at trial.

Schnieder's lawsuit argues that - while YouTube has its Content ID rights management system to help large-scale copyright owners manage the use and posting of their content by the Google-owned service's users - for independent creators who don't have access to that system it's impossible to monitor and manage the unlicensed use of their work on the video platform.

And, she adds, the manual takedown systems offered by YouTube to those independent creators are not sufficient, which means the Google site is not fulfilling its obligations to enjoy safe harbour protection from liability for the copyright infringement on its platform.

There have been plenty of twists and turns in this dispute, not least because Schneider was originally joined by a co-plaintiff who then had to drop out after being accused of some dodgy dealings in his attempts to get access to Content ID.

Throughout YouTube has been trying to get the litigation dismissed, often arguing that Schneider does in fact have access to Content ID via her distributor, and that her music industry business partners had actually provided licences covering her music.

However, generally the judge overseeing the case, James Donato, has knocked back those dismissal requests, including earlier this summer when he said that YouTube's arguments in favour of dismissal were "unavailing" and "not well taken".

According to Law360, there was another hearing on the case last week. Among other things, there was a discussion about one of Schneider's specific complaints about YouTube, to the effect that the video site allows copyright management information - ie metadata about the rights in any one piece of content - to be removed as that content is uploaded.

On that specific point too, Schneider's arguments fail, YouTube's legal rep argued. "Ms Schneider has to show ... that [the data] was removed, that it was removed intentionally, without authorisation, and that YouTube knew or should have known that removal of that [data] would foment copyright claims. She fails at every step".

Needless to say, Schneider's attorney did not concur. In fact, he argued, when a video is uploaded to YouTube any unique identifier relating to the sound recoding in the video - ie the ISRC - is removed. "They know that - and they know every sound recording has to have it", the lawyer added.

For his part, Donato said that he wasn't in a position to say which side was right but, either way, as with other parts of the dispute, there are enough questions to be answered to require this whole thing to go properly to trial before a jury.

"I'm not saying plaintiffs are right or wrong, I'm just saying there's enough of a fact dispute that this probably has to go to trial", he said, later telling the YouTube side: "I don't see how you get summary judgment".

And so the dispute continues.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Santigold says touring for middle level artists is "rough"
Santigold has further discussed her recent decision to cancel a US tour on the basis that - now that it has become possible to play live again following all the various COVID lockdowns in 2020 and 2021 - "some of us are finding ourselves simply unable to make it work".

"We were met with the height of inflation", she said in a statement confirming the cancellations last month. "Gas, tour buses, hotels and flight costs skyrocketed - many of our tried-and-true venues unavailable due to a flooded market of artists trying to book shows in the same cities, and positive [COVID] test results constantly halting schedules with devastating financial consequences".

"All of that on top of the already-tapped mental, spiritual, physical and emotional resources of just having made it through the past few years", her statement added.

In a new interview with Variety, Santigold expands on that theme, explaining that: "Touring has never been great. It's always been really, really hard. At the very top level, it works out fine. But at my level - somewhere in the middle - it's fucking rough".

"Even before COVID", she adds, "the only time it was really profitable is when I could anchor tours with a bunch of festivals and some private [usually corporate] gigs. And if you get a tour support from a label or other company - I never have - then you're in debt even more because that's a loan. Nowadays, even people touring at high levels are taking deals, because they can't make it work either".

As a result, she says, prior to the pandemic "I was making some money but not enough to live off. It was that and syncs and then hustle up, you know? You're always hustling".

While early in her career she was single with fewer bills, and she was therefore able to shrug off the low income from touring because it felt like an important part of building a fanbase, now she has three children and more responsibilities.

"I was on stage four months after I had twins", she says. "And why? Because there's not really another option. If you don't do it, you're going to lose relevance, you're going to lose momentum, you're going to be out of the public eye for too long".

"The other thing people don't realise [is] that any amount of money that we make, some goes to your management, your agent, your business manager, your lawyer", she notes. "That's 40% off the top of whatever you make, plus taxes. That's almost unsustainable in itself - I'm the only one that's not going to get paid, because I gotta pay everybody else".

"Even if it's not a financial problem", she adds, "[artists are] burning out, and that's where the mental health [problems] come in. Because it's not just the money - it's the relentless expectations of this industry, where you have to constantly put out music, you have to constantly be in front of the people, making TikToks and engaging on social media, you're supposed to be a marketing genius, you have to be constantly accessible - instead of making art! I didn't sign up for that. If art is becoming the side note, then maybe this isn't what I need to be doing".

As for what could be done to make this better, she says: "I think the first step is for people to start being honest about what it's like, and the hard thing about that is it requires you to be very vulnerable - because nobody wants to say, 'I can't make it work'"

"For whatever reason", she goes on, "the perception [from fans] is that you just walk up onstage and you perform and it's no effort and you're in this very comfortable lifestyle, when you're not. It's a really difficult, unforgiving way to make a living. So I don't have the answer. I don't think there is a quick fix".

Although Santigold is being particularly candid on all this, she is definitely not alone in finding both the economics and physical strain of touring challenging, despite the common narrative that live is where artists make all the money.

Some other artists have also been more open about those challenges of late, with a number of other acts who have recently cancelled shows being much more honest about the reasons why, often citing mental health reasons.

Last week Animal Collective cancelled a run of shows in the UK and Europe saying that they'd realised that they were facing "an economic reality that simply does not work and is not sustainable".

You can read Santigold's full Variety interview here.

This story is discussed on this edition of our Setlist podcast.

--------------------------------------------------

AEG Presents appoints Lucy Noble as its first ever Artistic Director
AEG Presents - the concert and tour promotions division of AEG - has hired Lucy Noble, who has spent more than two decades working at London's Royal Albert Hall, to take on the new role of Artistic Director within the company's European senior leadership team.

In that new role, she will be responsible for "setting the artistic direction across the company's live touring and events business, driving expansion into new areas". Her remit will include content creation and the production of new events, plus "promoting and touring shows, with an initial focus on the UK, followed by an eventual expansion into Europe and other territories".

She reports into AEG Presents UK CEO Steve Homer, who says: "Professionally, this is a huge win for AEG and only strengthens our world-class reputation; I can't wait to see the creativity and direction she'll bring to our AEG Presents business as we move forward on this exciting next phase in our journey".

"On a personal level", he goes on, "I'm extremely chuffed - I've worked with Lucy for many years and it's always been a wish of mine to bring her over to our side of the fence. We're THRILLED this is now a reality".

Noble herself adds: "I've worked closely with the AEG team for many years and have long since admired their work. To join a leader of this calibre, working across live music and events, is something I can't wait to be part of".

"After a two decade tenure", she continues, "I count many of my colleagues as dear friends and as such, it was always going to take something pretty spectacular to draw me away from 'the Hall'. While it will always hold a special place in my heart, I'm excited about what's to come".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Spotify might be about to launch platinum level with higher quality audio
There was speculation this weekend that Spotify might be getting ready to launch a new 'Platinum' subscription package that would be double the price but which will include higher-quality audio.

This is all based on correspondence seemingly received by a person who recently cancelled their Spotify subscription. According to 9to5Mac, that correspondence asked the ex-subscriber if he might consider signing up to Spotify once again if he had access to a number of new features that will be available as part of a $19.99 a month Platinum plan.

The extra features promised in this email apparently include: "HiFi, Studio Sound, Headphone Tuner, Audio Insights, Library Pro, Playlist Pro and limited-ad Spotify podcasts".

There have been rumours for years now that Spotify would eventually follow the lead of most of its competitors and make higher quality audio available, and at an event in February 2021 the company specifically promised that development - aka Spotify HiFi - was in the pipeline.

Of course, there was a time when higher quality audio was seen as a feature that could command a higher subscription price than the standard 9.99 a month, and initially that's what Tidal, and then Deezer and Amazon, did. But then Apple decided that higher quality audio should be part of the standard package, making it harder for other services to charge extra.

This means many of Spotify's rivals already provide higher quality audio in their standard packages. Which is presumably why Spotify Platinum, although making HiFi available for the first time, will also seemingly include other added value benefits.

Spotify is yet to comment on any of this speculation, though the email received by that ex-subscriber implied Platinum would be launching imminently.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Bauer shifts production of Radio Borders content to new Edinburgh base
Bauer Media is relocating the production of the local content that is aired on its Radio Borders station from the Borders town of Galashiels up to Edinburgh, where the media firm has a new base. The company's studio facilities in Galashiels will then close.

It means that local news and travel content, and the Radio Borders breakfast show, will now be made at the new Bauer base in the Scottish capital. That new base - which also houses the media firm's Edinburgh radio stations Forth 1 and Forth 2 - opened earlier this year within the shopping centre that they insist on calling the St James Quarter.

UK media regulator OfCom is currently able to grant permission for local radio programming on Scottish radio stations to be made outside the specific area where the programmes are aired providing they are still located within the same region - the south of Scotland in this case - and in return for the broadcaster providing an "enhanced news service".

Confirming the shift, Victoria Easton-Riley, Content Director for Bauer's Hits Radio Network in Scotland, told Radio Today: "We are committed to providing the best quality in radio content and, having recently launched our brand new state of the art studios in Edinburgh, our team in Galashiels have jumped at the chance to use them and be close to their colleagues in Forth 1 and 2, so making this switch full time made sense".

"There'll be no noticeable change for listeners", she added "as we'll continue to provide our listeners with the best local news and entertainment, life-changing competitions and of course the biggest hits and the biggest throwbacks too".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Plastic surgeon says social media post didn't imply 50 Cent had a penis enlargement
The plastic surgeon sued by 50 Cent for posting a photo of the rapper to her company's social media profiles has hit back at the lawsuit, arguing that she hasn't used the image for promotional purposes. And, anyway, 50 Cent gave her permission to post the photo in return for services provided to him and his girlfriend.

The rapper - real name Curtis Jackson - sued Angela Kogan last month. He claimed that he assumed Kogan was just a fan who wanted a souvenir when he agreed to be photographed with her back in 2020.

Therefore he was shocked when the picture was used on the social media of Kogan's company, which trades as Perfection Plastic Surgery and MedSpa. By using the photo in that way, Jackson claimed, Kogan was implying he both used and endorsed her company's services.

Worse still, the photo was also used in an article on gossip site The Shade Room in which Kogan discussed the rise in plastic surgery for men, including penile enhancements. The use of the photo alongside that interview - which Jackson argued was basically advertorial - again implied that he had used and endorsed Kogan's company, and also possibly implied he'd had surgery on his penis.

"Jackson never had such a sexual enhancement procedure, he has never received plastic surgery from defendants, and he never consented to the commercialisation and publication of the photo", the rapper's lawsuit stated. "Defendants' actions have exposed Jackson to ridicule, caused substantial damage to his professional and personal reputation, and violated his right to control his name and image (which has significant economic value)".

In her legal response last week, Kogan describes how the photo "shows plaintiff standing with his arm around defendant (with defendant dressed in professional attire), in the middle of defendants' office". Meanwhile, it was "posted on defendants' social media profiles with the caption 'thank you @50cent for stopping by the number one med spa @bh_perfection_medspa'".

"Neither the photo itself nor the caption thereof", her legal filing goes on, "purports to show use of the photo in direct promotion with any commercial product or service. Rather, the photo is an innocuous capture of plaintiff and defendant in defendants' office, with defendants' inclusion of a sentence containing pure puffery".

"Defendants' sharing of the photo was made solely for entertainment purposes (ie to share on social media amongst defendants' followers)", it adds. "Defendants have never shared the photo with any third party publication for the purpose of claiming plaintiff received plastic surgery services and/or obtained a penile enhancement procedure from defendants or expressly stating the plaintiff endorsed such services".

But, Kogan goes on, "even if the court were to determine that plaintiff's name and image were used to directly promote a product or service, such use was made with the prior consent of plaintiff".

"Plaintiff's girlfriend visited defendants' office for the purpose of receiving free MedSpa services in exchange for promoting defendants' business", it claims. "Plaintiff joined his girlfriend on this visit, and also agreed to receive free MedSpa services in exchange for promoting defendants' business via taking the photo and allowing it to be shared on defendants' social media profiles".

So there you go. We await Jackson's response.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN