Laden...
| TUESDAY 11 JANUARY 2022 | COMPLETEMUSICUPDATE.COM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TODAY'S TOP STORY: UK Home Secretary Priti Patel has confirmed that she plans to bring forward legislation later this year that will require venues and events to put in place security measures to protect the public from possible terrorist attacks. That commitment follows a consultation on proposals made in response to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing... [READ MORE] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UK government responds to consultation on new anti-terror measures at venues and events A total of 22 people died during the terrorist attack at the Manchester venue, which occurred as an Ariana Grande concert was ending. There is currently no legislative requirement in the UK for venues or promoters to consider or employ security measures at the vast majority of public spaces. In response to a campaign launched in the wake of the Manchester Arena attack, the government last year opened a consultation on a proposal that such a requirement, dubbed the 'Protect Duty', be introduced. At the time the government said it was "committed to improving the safety and security of public venues. This consultation considers how we can work together to develop proportionate security measures to improve public security. It also considers how those responsible for publicly accessible locations are ready and prepared to take appropriate action, were a terrorist attack to happen". Noting that the government was in part responding to campaigning that followed the Manchester bombing, then Security Minister James Brokenshire added: "We also hope that these proposals respect and acknowledge the important work of all those who have campaigned for legislation". "In particular, I want to thank Figen Murray, whose son Martyn was killed in the Manchester Arena attack, for the significant contribution she has made through her tireless campaign to introduce 'Martyn's Law'. We look forward to working with them throughout the consultation period to help gather their views and encourage others to contribute too". Ministers formally responded to the results of that consultation yesterday. In her response, Patel stated: "Following the tragic attack at the Manchester Arena, we have worked closely with Figen Murray, victims' groups and partners to develop proposals to improve protective security around the country. I am grateful for their tireless commitment to the Duty and those who responded to the consultation; the majority of whom agreed tougher measures are needed to protect the public from harm". "We will never allow terrorists to restrict our freedoms and way of life", she added, "which is why we are committed to bringing forward legislation this year, that will strike the right balance between public safety, whilst not placing excessive burden on small businesses". Current Security And Borders Minister Damian Hinds MP went into more detail in his statement, saying: "The Protect Duty consultation received a significant number of responses, and the views expressed and presented in this document, and through consultation events, have provided a detailed evidence base of the opinions of the public and those organisations which operate at public places, as to what a legislative requirement could achieve and how it could best be taken forward". Hinds noted the strong support for the Protect Duty proposals, though also conceded that clarity was needed on what kinds of venues and events would be covered by the new requirements and what the new requirements would specifically involve, plus consideration was required as to whether affected venues and events were in a position to comply with any new duty. "I have noted the strength of views expressed in response to several consultation questions, that it is right that those responsible for public places should take measures to protect the public and to prepare their staff to respond appropriately", he went on. "In short, taking measures to ensure that there is an appropriate and consistent approach to protective security and preparedness at public places is a reasonable ask". "However", he added, "the responses also highlighted the challenge of which organisations should be in the scope, and what would constitute proportionate security measures. This includes ensuring that there is not an undue burden on organisations, particularly those which are smaller in size or staffed by volunteers, such as places of worship. These are issues I am considering carefully. The government's impact assessment for the Duty and its requirements will also robustly assess the question of costs and burdens further". Michael Kill from the Night Time Industries Association issued a statement regarding the government's response, stressing that smaller businesses will definitely need support when the Protect Duty goes into force, and that ministers should factor that support in from the start. Consideration also needs to be given, he added, to the fact that the night time and live entertainment sectors are facing extra challenges at the moment as a result of the COVID pandemic and various lockdowns, including a shortage of licensed security personnel. These challenges also need to be considered as the Protect Duty is developed. Kill: "Our industry takes its role in protecting our staff and customers extremely seriously, and have proactively engaged with government departments throughout the Protect Duty consultation. Its been a challenging year for the sector, with the implementation of changing public health mitigations, and now under new regulations presented by the Home Secretary, the industry will be asked to contingency plan for potential terror threats within venues and events". "Larger clubs, events and festivals, that work with large crowds within the public domain, address the challenges as part of their planning process, working closely with police and local authorities on counter terror measures, which will complement much of the proposed regulations", he added. "But there will be challenges for smaller businesses, which will need a considerable level of support from government and local authorities as they assess the risk and action plan accordingly". He concluded: "While we focus on public safety there are some concerns from the sector, particularly smaller independent businesses, on the cost of implementing measures, proportionality against risk, but also wider industry concerns, in particular the lack of licensed security personnel, which will be a fundamental requirement as we move into the busier periods of 2022. It is vitally important that the government, police and local authorities work closely with businesses through this process, but also consider some of the inherent challenges from the pandemic". | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jury selected for Cardi B's defamation action against YouTuber Cardi B - real name Belcalis Almanzar - sued Kebe back in March 2019 in relation to various videos the YouTuber posted to her unWinewithTashaK channel which, the rapper claims, included defamatory statements. Among other things, Kebe is accused of incorrectly stating that Almanzar "was a prostitute … was a user of cocaine … had and still has herpes … had and still has HPV … engaged in a debasing act with a beer bottle and … committed infidelity". Almanzar initially sought a summary judgement in her favour, but the judge overseeing the case knocked back that request last July, concluding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether or not some or all of the claims made by Kebe were in fact "false and defamatory". That was in no small part because of content submitted to the court by the YouTuber in which Almanzar seems to admit to being a sex worker and using drugs, thus suggesting that at least some of Kebe's statements were not, in fact, false. The case was originally due to reach court last September, but was then moved back to November. The latter hearing was then postponed at the last minute due to a "family emergency" on Almanzar's part, a development that resulted in the Kebe side accusing the rapper of not being serious about pursuing the case, adding that the whole thing should be dismissed as a result. But the judge declined Kebe's dismissal request too, meaning a full hearing is now underway in the courts in Georgia. Yesterday was focused on jury selection. According to Law360, one potential juror admitted that, as a fan of Almanzar, she would likely be biased in favour of the rapper. She was obviously not selected as a juror. And, indeed, other fans were not selected too, even though they insisted that liking Almanzar's music wouldn't result in any bias if they were required to deliberate on the defamation case. Another potential juror was not selected because he said that he didn't like rap music in general and that that would likely make him biased against Almanzar. And another was rejected because he said he believed celebrities should have thicker skins when it comes to people talking about their lives and criticising their work. But the good news is that seven women and three men were selected, and with a jury in place opening statements can be delivered later today. All jurors have been asked to refrain from following Almanzar on social media for the duration of the trial. -------------------------------------------------- Boutique collecting society GMR agrees provisional settlement with US radio industry Founded by artist manager Irving Azoff in 2014, GMR represents the performing rights of a small collective of prominent songwriters. In doing so, it competes for members with the three other performing rights organisations that operate in the US, them being BMI, ASCAP and SESAC. Broadcasters wanting to play music written by any songwriter need a licence from all four. Because BMI and ASCAP both represent such large catalogues of songs, they are regulated by the US Department Of Justice through the so called consent decrees, which are meant to overcome competition law concerns that are often raised about collective licensing. SESAC, although not governed by a consent decree, agreed to third party mediation on royalty disputes during a past legal battle with the RMLC. The radio industry committee has been trying to force GMR to also accept third party mediation pretty much ever since it was set up. The RMLC argues that - like with the other collecting societies - there are competition law concerns around GMR. But GMR has countered that those arguments are not valid. After all, it represents a relatively small group of songwriters, even if between them they've written some very popular songs. Meanwhile the RMLC represents the vast majority of the US radio industry. So if there are any competition law issues here, they are on the radio industry's side. After the dispute went legal, both sides sought summary judgement in their favour. But the judge overseeing the case denied those requests back in February 2020, meaning the whole matter was still working its way through the system, with a bunch of deadlines coming up over the next few months in relation to discovery and expert reports. However, both sides in the dispute have now requested that those deadlines be pushed back. That's because a provisional settlement has now been agreed, though said settlement is dependent on a certain number of radio stations formally entering into the licensing agreement negotiated with the committee. And more time is required for that. In a legal filing last week, GMR and RMLC said: "The parties have entered into a conditional settlement agreement to resolve the actions. The parties' settlement agreement is conditioned on a certain percentage of a specified group of US commercial radio broadcasters entering into a licence agreement with GMR that is part of the negotiated settlement agreement". To that end, they went on, "the parties jointly seek a brief extension of the existing discovery and trial deadlines to provide US commercial radio broadcasters the opportunity to consider the proposed licence agreement with GMR, which could result in a final settlement of these matters". Assuming the court agrees to extend the deadlines, it remains to be seen if enough radio stations sign up to finally end this dispute. -------------------------------------------------- RIAA says stream-ripper's legal claim depends entirely on sneaky wordplay The stream-ripping site sued the record industry trade group in 2020 after the latter sought to have the former de-listed from the Google search engine. The RIAA made that request of Google on the basis that Yout contravenes the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing "YouTube's rolling cipher, a technical protection measure, that protects [the labels'] works on YouTube from unauthorised copying [and] downloading". The original lawsuit got super complicated as it went through the motions and it was ultimately dismissed, but with the option for Yout to file new litigation. Which it did in September. The RIAA filed new legal papers the following month seeking to have the new lawsuit dismissed. Yout then responded last month with arguments as to why the court should deny the motion for dismissal. At the heart of the dispute is whether or not YouTube actually has any technical protection measures in place to stop people from grabbing permanent downloads of streams. If it doesn't, then there is nothing for Yout to circumvent, meaning it isn't breaching the DMCA. Yout argues that you can actually grab a download of a YouTube stream via any web browser, if you know what you are doing. And, if you don't know what you're doing, Yout's September legal filing provided a handy twelve step guide. The Yout service simply automates that process, it argues, and therefore can't be said to circumvent any of those technical protection measures. However, the RIAA argues that working through Yout's twelve step guide to grabbing a permanent copy of YouTube content through a browser is basically a hack. Not only that, it's a tricky process. And YouTube has made it that way deliberately. Which basically means the Google video site has put barriers in the way of manual stream-rippers. And those barriers are technical protection measures. In its latest legal filing last week, again urging the judge to dismiss Yout's latest lawsuit, the RIAA states: "Contrary to plaintiff's claim, YouTube's technology does not cease to be a technical protection measure because plaintiff can describe a different, 'complicated', multi-step process for, inter alia, opening 'developer tools', engaging with source code, isolating particular files, modifying a numerical sequence in a 'request URL', and arriving at a download page. That is not how YouTube's technology operates in the normal course". If the American courts need any further convincing of that fact, they should take a look at a judgment in the English courts - the RIAA adds - where the UK record industry successfully secured web-blocking injunctions against a bunch of stream-ripping sites. "An English court recently held unequivocally that YouTube employs technical protection measures to effectively control access to copyrighted sound recordings", the RIAA reports in its latest legal filing. It then quotes directly from the judgement in the UK case, which stated that the process by which YouTube hides the specific URL of any one video file on its platform "amounts to a 'technological measure' ... because it is a technology, device or component designed in the normal course of its operation to protect a copyright work other than a computer program: here, the sound recordings made available on YouTube". "The whole purpose of the technology offered by the [stream-ripping sites] is to circumvent the technical protection measures on streaming sites like YouTube", the UK judgement adds. And, having quoted said judgement, the RIAA says: "Other courts, including in the United States, have also recognised that YouTube employs technical protection measures to protected copyrighted works". Responding more specifically to Yout's most recent filing in this dispute, the RIAA says: "Plaintiff's opposition to RIAA's motion to dismiss repeats many of the same failed arguments that plaintiff made in the prior round of briefing and again resorts to wordplay to manufacture a disputed issue of fact. Those arguments fare no better the second time around". "The central issues presented by RIAA's motion to dismiss are whether the technological protection measures employed by YouTube are effective technological protection measures under [the DMCA], and whether Yout circumvents them. The facts alleged in the [Yout's amended lawsuit] and the law make clear that the answer to both questions is 'yes'. YouTube does employ technological protection measures (whether labeled 'rolling cipher', 'request URL', or 'sequence of numbers') and the Yout service avoids or bypasses them when it makes 'modifications' to them". The RIAA then concludes: "Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary cannot be squared with plaintiff's own allegations, the controlling statutes, or the case law. Plaintiff has tried and failed three times to plead a plausible claim for relief. The court should dismiss the [amended lawsuit] with prejudice". And so the back and forth continues! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Harbourside Artist Management launches Disability Empowerment Programme With support from Youth Music, the Disability Empowerment Programme will see Harbourside recruit a young music manager with a disability, long-term health condition or neurodiversity into a paid internship position. The company says the manager will then work with "a selected band or artist who identifies as the same", with both manager and artist fully supported by the Harbourside team, plus funding is in place for an EP release and accompanying marketing campaign. The new programme follows a survey undertaken by Harbourside last year of almost 150 music industry people who identify as having a disability or long-term health condition. In that survey, 71% said their impairment or condition is non-visible and, of those people, 88% revealed they 'sometimes' or 'never' disclose the impairment or condition to those who they work with, often because of concerns that doing so will impact on their careers. 69% of that subset admitted that choosing to not disclose their impairment or condition had put their health and safety at risk. The Harbourside study also considered previous Arts Council research that found that only 1.8% of music industry professionals identify as having a disability, compared to the UK population average of 18%. Of those surveyed by the management company, 90% agreed that the lack of visibly disabled people in the music industry contributed to under-representation in the sector. 79% said a lack of opportunities at a youth level were also a factor, while 73% cited the music industry's reputation for demanding long working hours from its employees, and possibly not providing the flexibility required by disabled workers. Harbourside's Ben Price hopes initiatives like the Disability Empowerment Programme can help address the issues identified by the Arts Council and his own study. "We identified a problem in our consultation last year", he says, "now we're doing our bit to try and solve it. It won't be a short journey, but the Disability Empowerment Programme will hopefully help to improve the number of disabled people working in the industry both on stage and behind the scenes". "I have spoken to so many people who see the music industry as an inaccessible place for them to work", he adds. "We want to change that perception and show that there can be opportunities if employers are willing to make reasonable adjustments to improve accessibility in the workplace". Details of how to get involved in the programme are available on the Harbourside website - info for the management intern opportunity here, and info for the artist opportunity here. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Royal Mail unveil Rolling Stones stamps The musical greats being celebrated this time are The Rolling Stones. Marking the 60th anniversary of the band, there are eight stamps featuring photos of them playing gigs around the world, from their Hyde Park show in 1969 to a gig in East Rutherford, New Jersey in 2019. There's then two more stamps featuring photos of the band's post-1993 line up, and two more featuring old gig posters. Says Royal Mail's David Gold: "Few bands in the history of rock have managed to carve out a career as rich and expansive as that of The Rolling Stones. They have created some of modern music's most iconic and inspirational albums, with ground-breaking live performances to match". The stamps will be available from 20 Jan. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APPOINTMENTS Lisa Boateng has joined PR agency Huxley as a publicist. She was previously at We Care A Lot PR. "I am extremely pleased and excited to join a company like Huxley, with a team that pride themselves on being creative, socially conscious and putting their artists first", she says. UK record industry collecting society PPL has promoted Chloe Rowlatt to Head Of International. She has been International Business Manager since 2017. "I am proud and excited to be stepping into this role at PPL and to continue working with such a brilliant team, building on our success over recent years and delivering results for our members", she says. "This has been more important than ever since the start of the pandemic". Sony Music-owned media company Somethin Else has hired Annabel Wilcken as Head Of Branded Podcasts. She was previously Director Of Multi-Market Activation & Planning at Spotify. "Having evangelised the power of audio as one of the most creative, authentic and effective tools for marketing for most of my career, joining Somethin Else to lead their branded podcast efforts is a hugely exciting step", she says. -------------------------------------------------- DIGITAL & D2F SERVICES Back in February 2021, Spotify announced that it would launch a high quality audio offering by the end of the year. But the end of the year has been and gone and still Spotify HiFi is nowhere to be seen or (more importantly) heard. Well, now there's news. But the news is that there's no news. Responding to a question on Spotify's support forum yesterday, a rep for the company said: "We're excited to deliver a Spotify HiFi experience to premium users in the future. But we don't have timing details to share yet". -------------------------------------------------- EDUCATION & EVENTS With cases of the omicron variant of COVID-19 surging, the International Live Music Conference in London has announced that it is pushing its 2022 dates back. Originally scheduled to take place at the beginning of March, it has now moved to 26-29 Apr. "We're clearly still living in unusual times, but by delaying ILMC slightly, we can ensure that the world's top live music and entertainment professionals are able to unite in person, and that this year's edition of the conference is as packed and productive as ever", says ILMC boss Greg Parmley. -------------------------------------------------- RELEASES Alesso and Katy Perry have released the video for 'When I'm Gone'. Against The Current have released new single 'Wildfire'. The band will be touring the UK in March and April. Foxes has released new single 'Absolute'. Her new album, 'The Kick', is out on 11 Feb. Placebo have released new single 'Try Better Next Time'. New album, 'Never Let Me Go', is out on 25 Mar. Spiritualized have released new single 'Crazy'. New album, 'Everything Was Beautiful', is out on 25 Feb. Kae Tempest has released new single 'More Pressure', featuring Keven Abstract. Tempest's new album, 'The Line Is A Curve', is out on 5 Apr. The Body and OAA will release a collaborative album, titled 'Enemy Of Love', on 18 Feb. From it, this is 'Barren Of Joy', featuring Full Of Hell's Dylan Walker. Check out our weekly Spotify playlist of new music featured in the CMU Daily - updated every Friday. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pussycat Dolls say Nicole Scherzinger announced tour cancellation without their knowledge Lead vocalist Nicole Scherzinger announced on Friday that the shows would no longer being going ahead, citing surging COVID-19 cases. The shows had already been pushed back from their original 2020 dates by the pandemic and fans were awaiting newly rescheduled dates. Scherzinger did not take responsibility for the cancellation, but said in a statement posted in an Instagram story: "With the ever evolving circumstances surrounding the pandemic, I understand the decision that the tour dates had to be cancelled". "I have invested a huge amount of time, creative energy and my own finances into bringing this project back to life", she went on. "And while I'm naturally incredibly saddened by this decision, I am also very proud of what we were able to achieve in the short amount of time we had together before COVID". Whoever made the ultimate decision not to go ahead with the shows - if it wasn't Scherzinger herself, which does seem to be in question - they seemingly assumed Scherzinger would let the other members of the group know. Which, arguably, she did. She just did it at the same time as letting the rest of the world know. Two members of the group, Jessica Sutta and Carmit Bachar, released a joint statement after Scherzinger's, saying: "We want to say how incredibly disappointed we are to learn of an announcement made on Instagram that the Pussycat Dolls reunion tour is cancelled. As of now, there has been no official notification of that. Either way, it seems as though it's the end of a chapter to an incredible, life-altering experience filled with some awesome memories that we will forever be grateful for". Who did decide to pull the tour though? The group's founder and longtime manager Robin Antin perhaps? Well, she also seems unwilling to take the blame, posting her own Instagram statement, saying: "Myself and all the girls have been waiting on the rescheduled reunion tour dates for a long time, all of us working so hard to make it happen. All of us have made personal and financial sacrifices, but that's what it takes to be a team player in a 'BAND'". "Let's not forget there are five other members of this group who I care for deeply, who deserve to be heard", she went on. "There are truths to this situation, I just hope one day they see the light". So, that sounds like the back story here is quite interesting. It's no secret, of course, that there have been tensions behind the scenes amid efforts to get the group back on stage. Last year, Antin sued Scherzinger, accusing her of refusing to take part in the previously agreed reunion tour unless she was given 75% of the profits and "complete creative control". Antin also claimed that tour postponements were less to do with the pandemic and more the result of Scherzinger's "extortion", with things dragging on so long that Live Nation had demanded back the $600,000 advance it had paid on ticket sales. Scherzinger - who was already set to receive 49% of tour profits - hit back, saying that Antin's claims were "ludicrous and false". | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Laden...
Laden...
