Triller removing music from its app as label deals expire or are "reassessed"
TikTok rival Triller has started removing a load tracks from its music libraries. Possibly because its deals with the record labels are expiring. Possibly because it owes at least some labels a stack of cash. Possibly to save some money. Possibly because Triller users aren't really interested in all that stinky music. And possibly because of all these things.

Billboard reported on Friday that Triller was removing tracks controlled by all three majors and Merlin-allied indie labels as the video sharing app "reassessed" its music deals. That report came as Merlin confirmed to its member labels that its most recent licensing deal with Triller had expired and is yet to be renewed.

Sony Music, meanwhile, is currently locked in a legal dispute with the Triller company, it having sued in August over claims that the digital firm had a history of making late payments, and had then stopped making payments altogether earlier this year, so that millions of dollars are now owed to the music major. Requests for payment have been met with "near-total radio silence", Sony's lawsuit also alleged.

Billboard's Friday report cited one major label source who reckoned that similar disputes over late payments - and millions more of unpaid royalties - were why music was now being removed from the Triller app. However, a Triller spokesperson has insisted that those claims are "false and grossly inaccurate".

In a lengthy statement this weekend, Triller said: "The accusation that we are taking down music because of millions of unpaid royalties is simply not true. We have current active agreements with Universal Music and Warner Music, which is more than 65% of the used popular music".

"Of the three major labels", it added, "Sony Music is the only one we do not have a current agreement with and haven't renewed. We have a dispute with Sony over $2 million, a dispute which will be decided in the court system".

Meanwhile, the statement went on, music is mainly being removed from the Triller app because its data suggests users don't want to insert those tracks into their videos, preferring to create their own soundtracks, or to lift audio from the videos of other Triller creators via the 'OG sounds' function.

"We can confirm we assessed the app usage and a very small percentage of our users use the major label music as most of our users enjoy to make their own content with OG sounds and to upload on their own. Most of Merlin's music is indie rock and dance; both genres which [have] a lower interest on the Triller app. It therefore makes no sense for Triller to continue spending tens of millions of dollars a year for music virtually no one uses on Triller".

And without having to shell out all that money to the music industry, the statement explained, the Triller company will make more profit, making the whole venture more desirable to investors as it proceeds with its planned IPO.

Which is true. If Triller users really aren't interested in using commercially released music in their videos. Though creators on other short-form video apps clearly are interested in using commercially released music in their videos. But maybe the Trillerers - is that what we call them? - are a totally different breed of video-makers.

Triller's statement also talked about how it is seeking to rework its music industry licensing deals so that they are revenue share based rather than lump sum arrangements.

On one level, that actually fits with the music industry's own agenda. Record labels and music publishers - which have often done lump sum deals with short-form video apps, where they get a fixed payment for each licensing period - are seeking to evolve those deals into revenue share arrangements, where music companies get a cut of each digital firm's ad income.

That said, that arrangement only really works for the labels and publishers when there's a decent amount of revenue in which to share. And even with revenue share deals - which are the norm with Spotify-style services - labels and publishers often still push for upfront advances which are recoupable over a fixed time period. Because, you know, who doesn't love an advance?

But Triller remains confident that it can negotiate deals that work for the music industry, for its creators, and for its future shareholders. Providing no luddites over there at the labels and publishers fuck things up.

"Our approach and value proposition is not business-as-usual", its statement concluded. "We strive to work with all players in the creator ecosystem with fair and transparent economics, which certainly upsets the apple cart of those who are part of the current ecosystem. This is not the first label we will have to battle with given the way the current model works, and [it certainly won't be the] last. Big change causes big ripples. We are confident at we are on the right side of history".

Yeah, maybe.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Houston police charge man with murder of Takeoff
Houston police confirmed on Friday that a man has been arrested in connection to the death of Migos rapper Takeoff, who was shot dead during an incident at a bowling alley in the US city last month.

According to a TMZ report at the time, several shots were fired during an altercation at a private party taking place at Houston's 810 Billiards & Bowling in the early hours of 1 Nov, one of which fatally hit Takeoff, real name Kirshnik Khari Ball.

He was pronounced dead at the scene. Two others were injured, although the rapper's bandmate and uncle Quavo - who was with him at the time - was unharmed.

At a press conference on Friday, Sergeant Michael Burrow, from the Houston Police Department's homicide division, said that Takeoff was "an innocent bystander" to the shooting that resulted in his death.

"The event was a private party, there was a lucrative dice game that went on at the event, there was an argument that happened afterwards outside the bowling alley, which led to the shooting", he told reporters.

He added: "I can tell you that Takeoff was not involved in playing the dice game, he was not involved in the argument that happened outside, he was not armed. He was an innocent bystander".

The man accused of killing Takeoff is Patrick Xavier Clark. He was arrested last week and charged with murder.

According to CNN, prosecutors have told the court that they consider Clark a flight risk because shortly after the shooting he allegedly applied for an expedited passport, which he received immediately before his arrest. To that end they want a $1 million bond to be set if he is granted bail.

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

Taylor Swift fans sue Ticketmaster over The Eras Tour ticketing meltdown
A group of Taylor Swift fans have sued Live Nation's Ticketmaster over all the issues that occurred when tickets went on sale for her 2023 US tour because, well, of course they have.

There was plenty of social media outrage, resulting in widespread news coverage and political commentary, after Live Nation's Ticketmaster recently struggled to cope with the demand for tickets for Swift's 'The Eras Tour', her first live shows in five years.

Following the ticketing meltdown, Ticketmaster issued an apology to Swift and her fans, saying that unprecedented demand for 'The Eras Tour', as well as an army of bots trying to circumvent its Verified Fan system in order to buy up tickets to resell on the secondary market, put its platform under incredible strain.

"Never before has a Verified Fan onsale sparked so much attention - or traffic", the company stated. "This disrupted the predictability and reliability that is the hallmark of our Verified Fan platform. Overall, we estimate about 15% of interactions across the site experienced issues, and that's 15% too many, including passcode validation errors that caused fans to lose tickets they had carted".

The whole debacle has put the Ticketmaster business back in the spotlight, with critics once again hitting out at that the market dominance of Live Nation/Ticketmaster and the primary ticketing firm's continued involvement in the secondary marketing in the US.

That's in turn prompted US politicians to again consider competition - or the lack of thereof - in the US live music and ticketing marketplace, and continuing issues with secondary ticketing, including the illegal use by touts or scalpers of those bots to buy up tickets.

In the lawsuit filed by these aggrieved Swift fans with the courts in California, Live Nation/Ticketmaster's market dominance and its involvement in the secondary market are both criticised.

According to Pitchfork, the lawsuit states that "because no other venue can hold half as many people as the stadiums and venues working through Ticketmaster, Taylor Swift and other popular musicians have no choice but to work through Ticketmaster".

"Because artists like Taylor Swift have to go through Ticketmaster, their fans do as well", it goes on. "This means virtually all major music concert ticket sales in California and the United States go through Ticketmaster's primary ticket platform".

It then alleges that Ticketmaster "allows scalpers to buy up tickets over buyers who actually plan to attend the performances". And while schemes like Verified Fan are actually an attempt to stop that, "in reality [Ticketmaster] has taken steps to make additional profit from the scalped tickets".

How Ticketmaster will respond remains to be seen. Although with lawsuits of this kind, the usual initial response is that Ticketmaster's terms and conditions state that consumer grievances have to be taken to independent arbitration rather than be pursued through the courts.

Given that the plaintiffs presumably all signed up with the ticketing firm's Verified Fan system to access the pre-sale of Swift's tickets, they are presumably bound by those terms. Or, at least, it seems likely that's what Ticketmaster will argue.

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

2 Live Crew urges US judge to dismiss lawsuit seeking to block a termination right claim
Members of 2 Live Crew have called on a US judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed against them by Florida-based Lil Joe Records and to confirm that they can terminate a 1980s record deal and reclaim the rights in all the recordings released under that deal.

The music under dispute was originally released by Luke Records, the label run by 2 Live Crew member Luther Campbell. They were then acquired by Lil Joe Records - along with other copyrights and trademarks controlled by the group - in 1996 when both Campbell and Luke Records went bankrupt.

Under US copyright law, if a creator assigns - so transfers - a copyright to a business partner, that assignment can be terminated 35 years later, allowing the creator to reclaim their rights. That particular termination right was added to US copyright law in the late 1970s and therefore started to apply in the 2010s.

Certain criteria must be met and admin tasks undertaken to apply the termination right, though on the songs side of the music industry songwriters reclaiming copyrights after 35 years has become quite routine.

However, on the recordings side, there remains some debate as to whether the termination right even applies. That's on the basis that record contracts are arguably work for hire agreements, which makes the label the default owner of any sound recording copyrights created. Which means there's no assignment to terminate.

That remains a controversial argument, though, that is currently being tested in court. And along the way plenty of artists have been able to renegotiate old record deals by threatening to begin termination right proceedings.

Among those disputing whether or not artists can terminate old record deals is Lil Joe Records. So, when members of 2 Live Crew - specifically Campbell, Mark Ross (aka Brother Marquis) and the estate of Christopher Wong Won (aka Fresh Kid Ice) - tried to terminate their 1980s record deal with Luke Records, Lil Joe Records sued to block any termination.

In its lawsuit last year, the label provided various reasons why the termination right didn't apply. For example: "The requisite and proper notice has not been provided; Luther Campbell, Luke Records and Mark Ross bankruptcy orders extinguished any ability they might otherwise have to terminate; [and] Christopher Wong Won and Mark Ross each conveyed their termination rights to plaintiff pursuant to written agreements".

Oh, and the deal with Luke Records was a work for hire agreement - even in the case of Campbell, who owned the label. Therefore Luke Records was the copyright owner of all the recordings by default, so the group's members have no personal claim to the copyrights.

However, in a new legal filing, the members of 2 Live Crew dispute all those claims. "In ruling on this motion, the court need only address one material issue", that filing states.

"An artist may, 35 years after publication of a work, terminate the initial transfer of ownership for that work's copyrights and reclaim the copyrights. The band 2 Live Crew granted to [Luke Records] copyright ownership of five albums from 1986 to 1990 and sent a notice to terminate said grant with an effective termination date 35 years after the publication of each album".

"Was 2 Live Crew's termination effective?", it then asks. "The answer to this question is 'yes' and defendants/counterclaimant's first counterclaim for a declaratory judgment validating 2 Live Crew's termination should be adjudicated in defendants' favour".

The rest of the legal filing outlines why the group feel they have the right to terminate their 1980s record deal and why none of the arguments put forward by Lil Joe Records are valid.

For example, "Lil Joe may argue that defendants lost their termination rights in prior bankruptcy proceedings or through old settlement agreements (all of which occurred before the termination right vested) - this argument, though, is foreclosed by the Copyright Act's text".

"2 Live Crew did not create the subject albums as works for hire and thus had the right to terminate the transfer", it also adds, before discussing how the work for hire principle has been defined in other US legal cases.

We now await to see what the judge makes of all those various claims and arguments.

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

Guns N Roses sue shop selling guns and roses, Axl Rose vows to stop throwing microphones
Guns N Roses are suing a Texas firearms store for trademark infringement because they don't want their name to be associated with… erm, guns.

Texas Guns And Roses has been selling guns and (yep) roses for at least the last eight years - having filed to register the name as a trademark in 2014. The operation is owned by Jersey Village Florists (hence the roses) in Houston, Texas.

The band say that they have sent several cease and desist letters to the store over the years, and have also filed a petition to have the retailer's trademark cancelled, all to no avail.

The band now say that they have no choice but to sue, because otherwise it is clear that the "defendant will continue to use … the Guns N Roses mark or marks confusingly similar thereto, and will cause irreparable damage to GNR".

The apparent association between the band and shop is "particularly damaging" because of the "nature of defendant's business", the lawsuit confirms.

Although they also add that the Texas Guns And Roses website carries a news section reporting on US second amendment related stories, in which "defendant espouses political views related to the regulation and control of firearms and weapons on the website that may be polarising to many US consumers".

Guns N Roses are seeking a judgement that their trademark has been infringed; an injunction preventing the store from using its current name; the cancellation of the store's own trademark; and some damages.

This move has seemingly already had the desired effect, with the Texas Guns And Roses website now offline.

Elsewhere in Guns N Roses news, frontman Axl Rose has apologised to a fan and said that - after 30 years of doing so - he will stop throwing his microphone into the audience at the end of his shows. This comes after a fan in Australia was injured by his flying mic last month.

Rebecca Howe was left with two black eyes after being hit by the microphone at a show at Adelaide's Oval venue on 29 Nov.

She told the Adelaide Advertiser: "I was in Diamond Standing, so it wasn't even right at the front, and it was the very last song, 'Take Me Down To Paradise City'. He took a bow and then he launched the microphone out to the crowd … and then bang, [it hit me] right on the bridge of my nose".

"My mind went, 'Oh my God, my face is caved in", she added. "What if it was a couple of inches to the right or left? I could have lost an eye … what if it hit me in the mouth and I broke my teeth? If my head was turned and it hit me in the temple, it could have killed me".

In response on Twitter last week, Rose said: "It's come to my attention that a fan may have been hurt at [our] show in Adelaide Australia possibly being hit by the microphone at the end of the show when I traditionally toss the mic to the fans. If true obviously we don't want anyone getting hurt or to somehow in anyway hurt anyone at any of [our] shows anywhere".

"Having tossed the mic at the end of [our] show for over 30 years we always felt it was a known part of the very end of [our] performance that fans wanted and were aware of to have an opportunity to catch the mic", he added. "Regardless in the interest of public safety from now on we'll refrain from tossing the mic or anything to the fans during or at [our] performances".

He then blamed the media for blowing the whole thing out of proportion, saying: "Unfortunately there [are] those that for their own reasons chose to frame their reporting regarding this subject in a more negative [and] irresponsible out of nowhere light which couldn't [be] farther from reality. We hope the public and of course [our] fans get that sometimes happens".

Guns N Roses are set to headline a show as part of the British Summer Time festival in Hyde Park on 30 Jun. Bad luck if you were hoping to catch a microphone there. Or buy some guns.

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

US Congressional committee to consider latest radio royalty proposal this week
The Judiciary Committee of the US House Of Representatives will this week discuss the proposed American Music Fairness Act which would introduce a radio royalty for recordings into American copyright law for the first time.

The US is very unusual in that music radio stations broadcasting on AM or FM there only need to get licences covering the song rights, paying royalties through the collective licensing system to songwriters and music publishers. A limitation on the sound recording copyright under US law means no licences are required from, and no royalties need to be paid to, the record industry.

Artists and labels have been trying to get this changed for years, but the radio lobby is powerful in Washington and has successfully defeated previous attempts to bring US copyright law in line with other countries on this point. The usual argument is that radio airplay is valuable promo for artists and labels, so radio stations shouldn't have to pay royalties into the record industry as well.

Earlier this year, the current chair of the Judiciary Committee in the House Of Representatives, Jerry Nadler, spoke in support of the latest attempts to get artists and labels a radio royalty, that being the American Music Fairness Act. And now his committee will formally discuss the proposals via a process known as 'markup'.

Welcoming that development, Joe Crowley - a former Congress member and current Chair of the musicFIRST Coalition, which has long campaigned for a radio royalty - said: "The House Judiciary Committee's decision to hold this markup is yet another sign of the growing momentum for music fairness on Capitol Hill. Our movement towards equity for artists has grown in strength because people grasp its basic principle: That Americans deserve payment for their work".

"The American Music Fairness Act ends a decades-long injustice of not paying artists performance royalties when their songs are played on AM/FM radio", he added. "It's not complicated: Everyone, including artists, should be paid fairly for their hard work. I am confident that my former colleagues will stand firmly behind this bedrock American value and support artists in this crucial moment".

However, the radio industry continues its efforts to block any new royalty to artists and labels. It even has its own rival proposals, the Local Radio Freedom Act, which would basically keep everything the same. The main aim of those proposals is to get Congress members to publicly declare their opposition to any new radio royalty by confirming their support of that act.

"More than 250 bipartisan cosponsors of the Local Radio Freedom Act, including a majority of the House Of Representatives, stand with America's local broadcasters against this onerous performance fee that would irrevocably damage local radio", National Association Of Broadcasters CEO Curtis LeGeyt said last week.

The NAB reckons the American Music Fairness Act is an unworkable one-sided proposal that would "upend the relationship between artists and broadcast radio".

Noting that the current session of the US Congress is reaching its conclusion following the recent elections, LeGeyt added: "NAB remains committed to working to find a mutually beneficial solution to this decades-old policy disagreement, but this AMFA proposal is not the answer. A markup of this legislation as drafted simply ensures that yet another Congress will pass without meaningful progress on this issue".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

BBC Sound Of 2023 longlist announced
This year's BBC Sound Of longlist has been published, revealing the ten artists most tipped to be successful in 2023 by a panel of experts. Among them are Cat Burns, Nia Archives and Flo, all of whom last week also made the BRITs Rising Star shortlist.

"This year's Sound Of longlist is one of the strongest and most diverse we've ever published", says BBC Radio 1's Head Of Music Chris Price.

"The most striking thing about it is the breadth of genres represented", he adds. "Every single artist on the list has been incubated on Radio 1's playlist and specialist output; whoever wins, we can be sure that 2023 will be a vintage year for new pop, dance, R&B, soul, drum n bass, Afrobeats and indie".

The top three will be announced on Radio 1 in the new year, with the overall winner unveiled on 5 Jan.

Here's the longlist in full:

Asake
Biig Piig
Cat Burns
Dylan
Flo
Fred Again…
Gabriels
Nia Archives
Piri & Tommy
Rachel Chinouriri

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

The Kunts announce third attempt at Christmas number one
You might think that with Boris Johnson finally out of the way The Kunts could consider that their work is now done and therefore put aside any continued hopes of achieving a Christmas number one with a sweary anti-government record. You would be wrong.

Having reached number five in 2020 with 'Boris Johnson Is A Fucking Cunt' and in 2021 with 'Boris Johnson Is Still A Fucking Cunt', this year their turning their attention to the rest of the Conservative Party. What could be more festive and full of Christmas cheer than a song called 'Fuck The Tories'?

"Christmas number one is a high profile but achievable target", say the band of their ambitions for the new song, before adding of the record: "It does not begin to make up for twelve years of heartless government, punishing the poorest, appalling decision making, mismanagement of our money, wrecking the economy, corruption, lies and sleaze".

But, they add, it is "a protest we can make which will be a massive embarrassment for the government not just in the UK but around the world - the previous Boris Johnson campaigns were reported as far afield as the US, South Africa, The Netherlands and Hungary - and something the government and their media teams will have to firefight or pretend to ignore all over the Christmas period".

"It's the easiest thing in the world to sit there and say things are pointless", they add, addressing anyone who says that this will achieve nothing. "Until we all voice our discontent with the way things are being run, nothing will change. If you don't do something, you just do nothing".

"This is something we can do and we want you to be part of", they go on, "we all believe punk shouldn't be a nostalgia trip, it should be making people feel uncomfortable and question things in the here and now".

One past criticism of The Kunts and their attempts to top the Christmas charts is that their releases are not put out to support any named charity, unlike some other Christmas number one contenders.

However, on this they say: "We have no record company or promotions company - we do everything ourselves, so a campaign like this takes two to three months [of] work to set up".

"We sell the downloads as cheaply as possible - major record labels charge you 79p or 99p, we put ours out at 59p - the minimum you can charge - [and] the platforms and distributor also take a cut of that. We pay all our remixers and collaborators fairly".

"Some of what is left over gets put back into the next campaign", they continue, "so the videos you see are funded by last year's campaign. Some is used for living expenses".

"We [do] donate some to charities that matter to us but we believe this should be down to personal choice, rather than the default setting for creative endeavours", they add. "We would never use charity to try and make people buy records or promote our image. If you like the campaign, back it. Food banks do amazing work. Support them. The fact that they exist at all in the UK in 2022 is part of the problem".

The band are, of course, up against numerous other contenders for this year's Christmas number one - not least a whole host of World Cup related tracks.

The success of those - including Baddiel, Skinner & Lightning Seeds' 'Three Lions (It's Coming Home For Christmas)' and Joel Corry's 'Lionheart (Come On England)' - will likely rely on England getting through to the final of the men's football World Cup this month.

That final will take place two days into the festive chart battle, so football-related songs would certainly have the momentum behind them if the England team was still competing by that point.

Still, in the event that the England team doesn't make it to the final (I know, imagine!), there are plenty more songs vying for the still coveted (maybe?) top of the Christmas singles chart.

There are Christmas classics like Mariah Carey's 'All I Want For Christmas Is You' that perform well every December on the streaming services, as well as new Christmas songs from the likes of Sam Smith, George Ezra and the king of Christmas, Cliff Richard. Or the festive chart could be topped by a non-festive tune, with Stormzy and Lewis Capaldi amongst those in the running.

The Kunt's 'Fuck The Tories' isn't the only anti-government Christmas chart contender this year either. There's a social media push to get The Prodigy's 1994 collaboration with Pop Will Eat Itself - 'Their Law' - to number one, and Robbie Williams collaborator Guy Chambers has written a new song called 'Thank Fuck It's Christmas', performed by Trickster and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra.

Then there are the customary charity singles, such as Basil Brush's 'Boom! Boom! It's Christmas Again' - which features previous Christmas number one champion Mr Blobby - released in aid of Save The Children, while Peter Crouch and Paul Potts are putting out 'Crouchy Conducts The Classics' to support Stonewall.

But we are, of course, still waiting for an announcement from The Kunts' nemesis in all this, that being LadBaby. The YouTuber has reached the Christmas number one spot for the last four years in a row, with songs about sausage rolls, raising money for the Trussell Trust food bank charity. You might have noticed a vaguely veiled swipe at LadBaby in The Kunt's statement earlier.

For some more possibly libellous (and not at all veiled) thoughts about Ladbaby and their charitable endeavours from The Kunts, you can head to their website.

If England get to the World Cup final (unlikely) or LadBaby enter the fray again (fairly likely), then The Kunts are going to have an uphill battle. That said, they've alway faced artists and chart campaigns with far stronger backing and media support, and have twice reached the top five. So who knows?

This will actually be The Kunts' second chart campaign of the year, they having attempted to get their song 'Prince Andrew Is A Sweaty Nonce' to number two during the Queen's Platinum Jubilee. That finished at number 20. Although, to be fair, no Jubilee-based chart campaign really gained much traction.

The race to Christmas number one begins on Friday 16 Dec at one minute past midnight and finishes at one minute to midnight on Thursday 22 Dec. The winner will be revealed on BBC Radio 1's 'Official Chart Show' on Friday 23 Dec.

Watch the video for 'Fuck The Tories' here.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Ian McKellan and Björn Ulvaeus knit Abba's Christmas jumpers together again
Abba's Björn Ulvaeus and actor Ian McKellen have shared a video of themselves knitting together. Not for the first time, mind. Although this year they talk too.

The pair last year posted a video of themselves knitting Abba Christmas jumpers in silence, promoting the band's festive merch offering. This year they're back, knitting more jumpers. And it's an altogether chattier video, the conceit being that McKellen has now joined Abba.

In the video, McKellen says that he's "very, very pleased" to see a new poster for the band's virtual avatar show 'Voyage', which features him standing in the centre of the group.

"You've found your place", says Ulvaeus.

Elsewhere in the video, McKellen muses that "knitting is a solitary activity, but one that you can do in company".

"I prefer knitting with a friend", he adds, but insists that Ulvaeus is his only knitting partner. So that's a whole thing. What can we learn from this, though? Well, tickets for Abba Voyage are available now and there is more Christmas merch on sale too.

Another thing I have learned is that you can watch the video here.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN