Well, we knew that since being let out of jail, but with no MegaUpload empire left to run, Kim ‘Dotcom’ Schmitz had been spending some time in Neil Finn’s studio in Auckland working on a debut album, and now a track has surfaced online, though it’s not clear whether it will appear on the final record. Possibly not, as, in fine hip hop tradition, it’s more of a diss track.

The subject of the recording is New Zealand politician John Banks, who has been in the news in his home country recently after it was revealed he received a NZ$50,000 donation to his campaign funds from the controversial MegaUpload founder.

Now that the MegaUpload enterprise and its directors face criminal charges in the US, Banks has been busy trying to distance himself from the donation, which was made towards his unsuccessful 2010 campaign to be re-elected as mayor of Auckland. The donation was seemingly made in two halves so that it was under the amount where the source of the money has to be declared.

Since Schmitz told reporters about his past financial support for Banks, the politician, now a member of the New Zealand parliament, has denied he knew that the Mega chief was behind the 50 grand donation in 2010, a claim that Schtmitz says is untrue.

The diss track, called ‘Amnesia’, includes a sound bite of Banks saying “I don’t know who gave me money, I can’t remember now”, a female vocalist singing “That politician got amnesia again”, and Schmtiz’s artistic collaborator Printz Board rapping “He’s the majority, so he’s all right, He is John Banks, he got the vote, and that’s why Key keeps him afloat, on his cabbage boat?”

The Key referred to is New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, while the last line refers to a statement made by Banks along the lines of “I did not come up the river in a cabbage boat”, which it’s thought basically means “I wasn’t born yesterday”, though most New Zealand journalists say they’ve never heard the somewhat bizarre idiom before either.

Dotcom himself does not appear in the new song, though it is thought he will rap on many of the tracks he is creating for the promised album. The US government continues to go through the motions, of course, to try and extradite Schmitz to face charges of copyright infringement, money laundering and racketeering in relation to his role in running MegaUpload. Meanwhile, you can, erm, enjoy ‘Amnesia’ here:

Virgin Media has become the first British internet service provider to block access to invariably controversial file-sharing website The Pirate Bay. As previously reported, on Monday the High Court in London passed injunctions, at the request of record label trade body the BPI, ordering five ISPs to instigate blocks against the Bay, so that when their customers try to access the web service they instead see a notice alerting them to the fact said website is blocked for copyright reasons.

Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk and O2 have all also been ordered to block access to the Bay in the next few weeks, and an injunction ordering BT to do the same is expected to be issued in due course (BT asked for a few more weeks to respond). The injunctions followed a court ruling earlier this year that said that The Pirate Bay is liable for the copyright infringement it enables, even though no unlicensed content actually passes through its servers; and also utilised a precedent set in the Newzbin case last year, where a judge decided that, under existing copyright law, web-block injunctions could be obtained where infringing web services were based outside the jurisdiction of the English courts.

Virgin and Sky have generally been more helpful to content owners looking to crack down on file-sharing that other net firms, mainly because with their own subscription movie services they have a vested interest in combating online piracy once it’s films being illegally downloaded. BT and TalkTalk have generally been the most resistant to taking on any obligations to police infringing customers.

Confirming it had already instigated a Pirate Bay block, a spokesman for the Virgin cable TV and net firm told reporters: “Virgin Media has received an order from the courts requiring it to prevent access to The Pirate Bay in order to help protect against copyright infringement. As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price”.

Of course, as much previously noted, all web blocks are circumventable for anyone who knows what they are doing, and since the Bay blocks were announced earlier this week various web pages have appeared telling the less tech-savvy how they can still access the Pirate Bay service once piratebay.org takes them to a ‘stop nicking our content you bastards’ holding page. Meanwhile the extra media coverage the blocks secured the rogue file-sharing site apparently resulting in a significant uplift in traffic for the service.

Lobby groups which are pro-file-sharing and/or anti-copyright-enforcement (or, anti what they perceive to be heavy-handed enforcement), will point to the ease with which web-blocks can be circumvented by those in the know as a reason why injunctions of this kind should never be allowed, adding that the cost and supposed censorship risks such blocks cause outweigh the limited returns they deliver in terms of combating file-sharing. They might also add that if the rights owners licensed more digital services, and ensured their entire catalogues were available by already licensed platforms, and addressed pricing concerns, then more casual file-sharers would probably go legit anyway.

And, of course, some of those are valid arguments, and raise issues the music and movie industries still need to address. Though more pragmatic rights owners would probably argue that, while there will always be a community of file-sharers who will continue to file-share, the aim here is to encourage mainstream web-users to only use legit services, and the way to do that is to both make sure those services are brilliant, engaging and easy to use, but also to do what you can to make the unlicensed options an arse to use. Which is really what web-blocking is about.

Three of the major music companies saw their global market share slip slightly in 2011, according to stats from Music & Copyright. According to the survey, Universal Music, Sony Music and EMI all saw their share of the music rights markets decline in 2011 compared to 2010, while Warner Music and the independents saw increases.

That said, Universal Music remains the biggest player in both recorded music and song publishing – having 27.9% of the former and 22.2% of the latter, compared to 28.7% and 22.6% in 2010. Sony Music saw its share slip from 23% to 21.9%, while the Sony publishing venture Sony/ATV went from 12.5% to 11.7%. EMI had a 19.9% share of recordings (down from 20.2%) and 19.3% of publishing (down from 19.7%)

Warner Music – soon to become the mini-major when the two bits of EMI are swallowed up by Universal and Sony (assuming those deals get the go ahead from competition regulators) – will be pleased that its market shares increased, with the Warner labels having a 15.1% share compared to 14.9% a year earlier, while the Warner Chappell publishing company went from 13.9% to 14.1% share.

Both the independent labels and independent publishers collectively increased their market shares in 2011, the former probably due to some key success stories like Adele, the latter likely because of the acquisitive nature of some key well-financed indie publishers, including BMG and Imagem. The indie labels together saw market share rise from 23.2% to 25.2%, while publishing went from 31.4% to 32.6%.

Ironically, this is the one moment in time when everyone will be pleased with these stats. Warner and the indies will be glad they have grown their share, while Universal and Sony will probably both use the fact their market shares slipped slightly as proof they are not out-of-control mega-monsters as they try to convince US and, in Universal’s case, EU officials to approve their respective EMI acquisitions.

Anyway, for those who prefer their stats in a list, here they are, 2010 figures in brackets.

Recorded Music
Universal Music 27.9% (28.7%)
Sony Music 21.9% (23%)
Warner Music 15.1% (14.9%)
EMI 19.9% (20.2%)
Independents 25.2% (23.2%)

Published Songs
Universal Music Publishing 22.2% (22.6%)
Sony/ATV 11.7% (12.5%)
Warner Chappell 14.1% (13.9%)
EMI Music Publishing 19.3% (19.7%)
Independents 32.6% (31.4%)

Digital distributor TuneCore and direct-to-fan experts Topspin yesterday announced an alliance which will enable the two companies together to offer an end-to-end solution to artists and rights owners looking to get their music into all key digital stores and platforms, while also selling product direct to core fanbase.

The new partnership will see the two firms integrate their technologies later this year, seemingly enabling users to manage digital distribution and direct-to-fan transactions via one platform. Users of either of the two firm’s services who don’t currently have accounts with the other will also be offered discounts to encourage artists and rights owners to utilise the integrated service.

Topspin has announced a number of alliances of late, though most previous partnerships have been about integrating the company’s sell-through system into other content platforms, including YouTube and MTV.

More details about the networking sessions at this year’s CMU-programmed Great Escape Convention have been announced. As well as the packed schedule of panels, debates and interviews that take place during the UK’s premiere music business conference, there are also numerous opportunities to meet, network and do business with other delegates from all over the world.

Three networking sessions will focus on different strands of the industry, with Meet The Distributors (Thursday am), Meet The Agents (Thursday pm) and Meet The Bookers (Friday am). Leading players from the UK distribution, booking agency and gig promotion sectors will be on hand to meet with those delegates interested in these services. Each session will include an hour of formal speed meetings, and an hour of informal networking open to all. For more information and to sign up, anyone with a Great Escape delegates pass should check this page here.

In addition to that little lot, for UK delegates there is UK Trade & Investment’s International Networking Sessions on Friday afternoon. As the official blurb says: “Meet a label from Japan, an agent from the States or a festival promoter from China – over 20 key international industry reps are on hand to talk about their markets and how to do business there”. Delivered in association with the Association Of Independent Music, UK-based TGE delegates interested in participating in this session should e-mail creative@ukti.gsi.gov.uk.

Finally, on a digital theme, this year’s convention programme will include a Digital Pitch Party and Digital Demo Party. At the former on Thursday afternoon, various companies who offer digital services for artists and labels will each make an elevator pitch and take questions via Twitter. Each pitcher will also bring a drink of their choice to the party which they believe represents their company. Once all the pitching is done, more informal networking will take place as all the drink is drunk.

The Digital Demo Party on Saturday afternoon will offer a more relaxed environment where both consumer-facing digital platforms and those offering digital tools for artists and labels can demo their products. Look out for more information of those companies taking part at in the next few days at www.escapegreat.com/networking

Finally from the TGE desk today, the shortlists are out for the Yearly Music Conference Awards. As previously reported, with The Great Escape taking place towards the end of the city-based showcase festival season, and as the music industry prepares to head to the fields for the big summer events, the YMCAs look back at the year just gone. Presented at a ticket-only brunch as part of the final day of the convention, the awards are also a chance for those agents, managers, bookers, business owners and export offices who visit many of these events, not to mention the people who organise them, to come together to eat, drink and be merry, and discuss the highs (and lows) of the music year.

The YMCAs committee has selected the shortlists for all of this year’s prizes, and wants the input of music types to decide the winners of eight categories. Shortlists and details of how to vote are online at www.theCMUwebsite.com/ymcas.

The CMU-programmed Great Escape Convention takes place next week from 10-12 May in Brighton, along the 300 artists+ Great Escape festival. For the full convention schedule click here, and for the full Great Escape festival line-up click here. You will also find an overview of the convention programme from CMU Business Editor Chris Cooke here. And delegate passes, if you haven’t already got one, are a bargain at £150 and available right here.

Brian Molko completes the In Conversation line-up at this year’s CMU-programmed Great Escape Convention, which takes place in Brighton next week (10-12 May). The Placebo frontman will appear in conversation with 6music’s Matt Everitt as part of a whole day of sessions presented by PRS For Music on 10 May, the first day of this year’s Great Escape.

As Placebo embark on a summer of festival dates, Molko will discuss a decade and a half in the spotlight, his creative process, and the continued thrill of live performance. Plus, particularly relevant given the DIY theme that will appear elsewhere at this year’s Great Escape Convention, we’ll get some insights on Placebo’s last album ‘Battle For The Sun’, which the band chose to self-release, striking up different licensing deals around the world, with very impressive results.

Confirming his interviewer role at the Great Escape Convention this year, Everitt told CMU: “There’s something special about interviewing someone live in front of an intimate audience – especially when it’s someone as fascinating, talented and unique as Brian. It’s going be an opportunity for me to speak to a musician who rarely gives interviews, and to discover more about his career, his life and how he regards his music and the industry around him, as well as to hear some stories that may not be suitable for repetition anywhere else!”

For the third year running, PRS For Music will present a whole day of sessions at next week’s Great Escape Convention. As well as the in conversation with Brian Molko, PRS For Music’s Chief Economist Will Page will present a keynote session looking at where the British music industry is heading in 2012, with contributions from Universal Music Group’s Olly Barnes, Live Nation Entertainment’s Tim Chambers and sync expert Ruth Simmons from soundlounge.

Meanwhile, other PRS For Music-organised sessions will look at the PR battle for legislative reform over copyright and the second screening phenomenon in TV, while the Make It Happen panel will offer practical tips to three new bands. Full details about these and the whole convention schedule for 2012 is now online at escapegreat.com/conversations

The Brian Molko In Conversation session is amongst the final additions to the line-up for this year’s CMU-programmed Great Escape convention, the full programme for which is now live here.

While CMU oversees the convention side of The Great Escape, a plethora of other great content partners will also host sessions. As well as PRS For Music’s full day of events, there will be panels this year from ACUMEN, PPL, the Music Publishers Association, MusicTank, Record Of The Day, Generator, Teenage Rampage, IC Music, Made In Brighton and Institut Ramon Llull, the latter being this year’s lead international partner for the whole Great Escape festival and convention.

Also just added to the In Conversation strand are legendary producers and musicians Lol Creme, Trevor Horn and Ash Soan, who will appear together in conversation as they prepare to release a new album from their collaborative group Producers. Between them, the members of this exciting collective have, over the past 40 years, scored over 200 hit singles and albums, which, we reckon, puts them in a very fine position to share some thoughts, advice and stories.

As previously reported, already announced for this year’s In Conversation programme were Xfm’s new music champion John Kennedy, who will be chatting to Jon Hillcock as the alternative station celebrates 20 years on air in London, and Domino Records’ Richard King, who will talk to The Guardian’s Alexis Petridis about his book exploring the history of British indie labels, ‘How Soon Is Now’.

Meanwhile Michael Eavis and Rob da Bank will be reunited on the TGE stage for the first time in six years to lead The Great Festival Conversation. Da Bank will then continue the festivals debate with three of the UK festival community’s most inspirational new promoters: Jo Vidler from the Wilderness and Secret Garden Party festivals, Simon Taffe from End Of The Road and Tom Baker from Field Day.

The In Conversation strand is, of course, just one component of The Great Escape Convention, which offers a packed programme of panels, debates, networking sessions and parties over three days in Brighton next week. As also previously reported, this year’s programme will feature a series of sessions on the whole DIY thing, and another on the state of the music media in 2012.

Offering practical advice to any artists considering going it alone to keep more control over their artistic and commercial affairs will be ACUMEN Business Law’s Josh Little, Republic Of Music’s Mark McQuillan, Sentric Music’s Simon Pursehouse, Create Spark’s Debbie Ball, Good Lizard’s David Riley, Music Glue’s Joe Porn, Brownswood Music’s Simon Goffe, Hi Road Studios’ Jack Kingslake, 13 Artists’ Angus Baskerville, Anorak London’s Sinead Mills, The Weird And Wonderful’s Steven Braines and DIY artists Adam Ficek and Chris T-T.

Meanwhile, considering the challenges and opportunities faced by the music press and radio industry in the digital age will be likes of Drowned In Sound’s Sean Adams, This Is Fake DIY’s Stephen Ackroyd, Vice’s Dan Miller, The Line Of Best Fit’s Josh Hall, The Times’ Will Hodgkinson, Q’s Paul Stokes, The Sun’s Jacqui Swift, Daily Mirror’s Gavin Martin, The Guardian’s Chris Lawson and Caspar Llewellyn Smith, Juice 107.2′s Daniel Nathan, Folder Media’s Matt Deegan, Amazing Radio’s Matt Jamison, podcasters Darren Hemmings and Matthew Young, and Xfm founder Sammy Jacob.

So, as you can see, rather a lot to be getting on with. Full details about the whole convention schedule for 2012 is now online here, while the full Great Escape festival line-up is available via this link. You will also find an overview of the convention programme from CMU Business Editor Chris Cooke here. And delegate passes, if you haven’t already got one, are a bargain at £150 and available right here.

See you in Brighton next week!

The High Court in London yesterday issued orders requiring five internet service providers to block their customers from accessing the always controversial file-sharing search service The Pirate Bay. The court orders were possible thanks to the precedent set in last year’s Newzbin case, and followed a court ruling earlier this year that confirmed that, under English copyright law, The Pirate Bay is itself liable for the copyright infringement it enables its users to actually commit.

As previously reported, while web-blocking injunctions have been issued on copyright grounds before in various places around the world, it wasn’t until last year such court orders were granted in the UK. When lobbying hard for new anti-piracy measures in the 2010 Digital Economy Act, the record industry proposed a system that would enable such injunctions but, while an outline of how such a system might work was included in the bill, the introduction of a three-strikes system to send warning letters to actual file-sharers was prioritised.

But the movie industry suspected that web-block injunctions, which force ISPs to block access to copyright infringing websites that are based outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts, were possible under existing copyright rules (if requiring a slightly more time consuming process), and proved that last year when they forced BT to block access to file-sharing site Newzbin. The BPI quickly followed by targeting The Pirate Bay. Ironically, of course, the three-strikes system that was prioritised by the DEA is yet to go live, and now looks unlikely to do so until 2014.

Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media will now have to stop their customers from accessing The Pirate Bay in the next few weeks. BT was included in the BPI’s injunction application, though it has asked for a little more time to consider its response, so that particular net firm won’t be forced to act on the Bay for a little while longer.

Of course web-blocks are always circumventable if you know what you are doing, and in the Netherlands, where an anti-piracy group secured web-block injunctions against two ISPs in relation to The Pirate Bay, said group then had to get another injunction to stop The Pirate Party from telling people how to dodge the blockade. But many rights owners reckon that more casual file-sharers won’t go to the effort of trying to access blocked sites, and that will be enough to have an impact in the fight against online piracy.

Welcoming yesterday’s web-block orders, the boss of record label trade body the BPI, Geoff Taylor, told CMU: “The High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale. Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them. This is wrong – musicians, sound engineers and video editors deserve to be paid for their work just like everyone else”.

He continued: “Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists. We urge anyone using The Pirate Bay to explore the many digital music services operating ethically and legally in the UK – especially those carrying the Music Matters trustmark”.

Web-blocking on copyright grounds is not without its critics, of course, and indeed such measures were at the heart of the SOPA and PIPA proposals that caused so much outrage in the US at the start of the year. Criticising the British Pirate Bay blocks yesterday, Jim Killock for the Open Rights Group told reporters: “Blocking The Pirate Bay is pointless and dangerous. It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism. Internet censorship is growing in scope and becoming easier. Yet it never has the effect desired. It simply turns criminals into heroes”.

Meanwhile Loz Kaye from The Pirate Party added: “Site blocking isn’t the solution to anything – it’s just censorship, and ineffective censorship at that. It’s laughably easy to circumvent; we’ve been running a Pirate Bay proxy for ages and there are many others out there. In the meantime, the public interest suffers, the big ISPs suffer because they have to censor the internet while their smaller rivals don’t, and artists suffer because they’ve lost a new and innovative platform”.

Back to the Digital Economy Act, and BPI boss Taylor has also been hitting out at the slow progress being made by the government in introducing the aforementioned three-strikes system. As previously reported, a rep for the Department Of Culture Media & Sport last week admitted at a Creative Coalition conference that the first round of warning letters are unlikely to be sent to suspected file-sharers until 2014, four years after the legislation that enabled such action was passed by parliament.

According to Music Week, speaking at the same conference last week, Taylor said: “It’s been two years now since the Digital Economy Act was passed and we’ve still not had a code published. We’re [now] waiting for the Communications Act green paper. What we need in there is measures that will require search engines, payment providers and all the other players in the internet ecosystem to play a responsible role in trying to make sure that people go to legal sites and not pirate sites”.

Bobby Brown has hit back at allegations that he was responsible for hooking his ex-wife Whitney Houston onto drugs. Said allegation surfaced several times after Houston’s premature death in February, as various pundits noted that the last decade of the singer and actress’s life was frequently dogged by drug addiction.

In an interview with NBC’s ‘Today’ show, Brown discusses both his and Hoston’s drug problems, insisting he has been off the drugs for seven years now, and that he believed his ex-wife had likewise ceased to be dependent on narcotics. But, as previously reported, a coroner concluded that the late singer died of accidental drowning due to the effects of cocaine and heart disease.

Brown says: “I was hurt … because, you know, me being off of narcotics for the last seven years – I felt that she was [too], I didn’t know she was struggling with it still. But at the same time, you know – listen, it’s a hard fight”.

Asked about the allegations it was he who introduced the singer to drugs after they first met in 1991, Brown denied that was the case. Asked if he was saying Houston had been taking drugs before they first met, he said: “Way, way before. Yeah … It’s just unexplainable how one could [say that I] got her addicted to drugs. I’m not the reason she’s gone”.

MegaUpload founder Kim ‘Dotcom’ Schmitz has won back in the region of $750,000 worth of his fortune after a court hearing in New Zealand.

The boss of the controversial file-transfer business is currently facing extradition from New Zealand to the US, of course, where he faces charges of money laundering, racketeering and copyright infringement in relation to the Mega enterprise. His multi-million dollar fortune was seized by the New Zealand authorities at the request of the Americans when he and several other Mega execs were arrested back in January.

It subsequently emerged that the New Zealand police had secured the wrong kind of warrant before raiding Schmitz’s home which, the tech man’s lawyers argued, made the whole operation illegal, and meant their client should get all his stuff back.

In a court hearing about Schmitz’s belongings last week, the New Zealand High Court said that a bank account containing just over $300,000 should be unfrozen, and a $250,000 Mercedes should be returned. The defendant’s wife will also get money to fund her living expenses out of Schmitz’s fortune, and the use of a Toyota Vellfire.

However, the majority of Schmitz’s assets will remain out of bounds while the criminal case against the Mega chief goes through the motions. And a bulk of the money made available to Schmitz last week will likely go on legal fees, with criminal proceedings to prepare for in both New Zealand and the US, not to mention the prospect of various civil claims by copyright owners, mainly in the States.

Though, as also previously reported, legal reps for Schmitz and the other Mega execs, none of whom are currently in the US, are confident that they can successfully fight off America’s extradition attempts, mainly because the core copyright charges against their clients do not command a high enough jail term in America to justify extradition. Criminal charges linked to the Mega company itself are hard to formally press, because the firm didn’t have a corporate base within the USA.

It was thought the extradition hearing for Schmitz et al would take place in August, though some local media in New Zealand are now pointing towards a September court date.

Warner Music owned metal label Roadrunner Records is being streamlined big time this week as the company’s founder, Cees Wessels, departs the company he founded in the Netherlands in 1980.

Warner took complete ownership of Roadrunner nearly eighteen months ago, but the company continued to run pretty autonomously. Under the latest revamp, most of the division’s back office operations will be taken over by the Warner group’s central teams, while – although Roadrunner’s A&R, marketing and promotions team will remain separate – there seems to be some downsizing going on there too.

Yesterday afternoon, as various Roadrunner staffers confirmed via Twitter or personal email lists that they’d been made redundant, there were rumours that only the Roadrunner US office would remain, with releases elsewhere being handled by Warner Music teams. However, sources close to the major have denied the cutbacks will be that extreme, with only original home The Netherlands losing its domestic Roadrunner office completely.

But, said sources added, 36 Roadrunner employees worldwide have been axed alongside Wessels’ departure this week, though no official statement has been made to that effect as yet.

Two pressure groups in the US have urged the Senate judiciary subcommittee that focuses on competition issues to review Universal Music’s bid to buy the EMI record companies.

As previously reported, web lobbying group Public Knowledge has already published its submission to the American Federal Trade Commission’s review of Universal’s EMI bid, airing very similar concerns about the proposal to those expressed by indie labels organisation IMPALA in Europe. But yesterday the group joined with the Consumer Federation Of America in calling for the merger of the Universal and EMI labels to be discussed on Capitol Hill too.

In a letter to Senators Herb Kohl and Michael S Lee, who sit on the relevant subcommittee within the US Congress’s Senate, the two groups re-set out most of the criticism about Universal’s deal that has been aired in other quarters, in particular that a combined Universal/EMI will command over 40% of the Anglo-American catalogue, and that that will give what is already the largest major music company too much power in digital negotiations, as well as over competitors and independents. Universal has already issued statements countering those claims.

But the letter also raises a new argument, citing the US Justice Department’s recent lawsuit against Apple and five major book publishers, who were are accused of colluding to fix prices in the e-book market. The letter asks, if five publishers which together have less than a 50% market share can pose a threat to competition in one market, what could one company with over a 40% market share do in the music space?

Universal was quick to respond to that point as well though, saying that price fixing rules and competition rules are two very different things, and that the ability for companies to collude on pricing has nothing to do with market share. The major told reporters: “CFA’s effort to compare this case to the government’s e-books case completely misunderstands the law. The e-books case is about an alleged illegal price-fixing conspiracy. Market shares don’t matter in a case like that it’s just as illegal for two tiny local bookstores to fix prices as it is for giant publishing companies”.

It added: “The law governing mergers is totally different, and most mergers, like this one, are ultimately found to be beneficial to competition and consumers”.

According to reports, relevant senators are now considering whether they should give time to discussing Universal’s grand EMI plan, though, even if they do, the FTC investigation will still seemingly be the important thing, even if any congressional debate on the matter makes for interesting viewing.

Universal Music owner Vivendi has denied a Bloomberg report that the board there is considered a dramatic reorganisation that could result in some of the firm’s divisions being spun off into standalone companies, or the group being split into two.

Speculation about a restructure follows an admission by the company’s Chairman and CEO in a recent letter to shareholders that the firm has been facing some difficulties of late, mainly because of a new competitor in the French telecoms market. Vivendi’s SFR tel co has traditionally been a good earner for the group, but the launch of an ultra-low cost mobile rival in France has hit it hard, just as the entertainment and communication’s firm took complete ownership of its telephone business, buying out Vodafone’s share this time last year.

According to Reuters, in their letter the Vivendi chiefs told shareholders that the firm’s board constantly reviewed its portfolio of companies, and that the concept of selling some of its assets was “never taboo”. They added: “Should we keep the perimeter of the group as it is? Should we sell assets or separate the group in two or three? These questions are not taboo … Your board is sensitive to these strategic questions and studies them deeply”.

These comments seem to have led to this week’s report that a split was being seriously considered at Vivendi HQ, with Universal Music and games unit Activision Blizzard sitting in one business, and other divisions in another. But a Vivendi spokesman yesterday strongly denied that any such proposals were being given serious consideration at this time.

Said spokesman told reporters: “Vivendi learned with stupefaction of the claims made by Bloomberg in a story published tonight about its strategy. Vivendi vigorously denies all the assertions in the story, which are unfounded and based on anonymous sources”.

Vivendi’s music business Universal plans to get much bigger, of course, via its planned purchase of the EMI record company, regulator approval permitting, though the music major will sell off some of its publishing catalogues to help fund the deal.

The European Commission’s competition regulators have sent out another questionnaire regarding Universal’s bid to buy the EMI record companies, according to Reuters.

The EC previously asked all affected parties for their opinions about the proposed takeover in March, and enough concerns were raised to persuade the regulator to proceed with a full three month investigation, rather than just approving the deal after one month, as it did with Sony’s bid to buy EMI Music Publishing.

A second questionnaire seeking commercial data from labels then followed, while this new call for information goes into more detail about the power (or not) of the big music companies, and delves further into those areas where most concerns were raised in phase one of the investigation. Most of the topics covered are predictable, though interestingly it seems the EC is particularly concerned about a combined Universal/EMI’s dominance in the jazz and classical genres as well as in chart hits.

Questions also look at whether Universal dominates radio and TV’s music output (it’s official tie up with the ‘Voice’ franchise has already caused some criticism in the UK tabloids), and whether or not, as the majors clam, the dominance of a small number of digital music providers – particularly Apple and Spotify in Europe – restricts the rights owners’ control over online pricing. It also poses other questions about the relationship between the majors and the digital players, including what control they have over the positioning of artists and music within digital stores.

The EC could block or approve Universal’s EMI deal outright, or look for a compromise that would force the mega-major to sell off some of its assets to win approval. Universal has so far resisted the temptation to offer such concessions (unlike Sony, which secured approval for its publishing purchase by committing to sell off some catalogues), but many reckon some remedies will be asked for by the regulators. And interest in the questionnaire about jazz and classics might suggest what kind of catalogues Universal would have to sell on to get the green light.

Pan-European indie labels group IMPALA and Universal’s rival Warner Music continue to oppose the takeover, of course. It was thought the EC would make a decision in early August, though Reuters is now pointing to early September.

Meanwhile, legendary producer George Martin has criticised the break up and sale of EMI to its two biggest rivals, Universal and Sony, saying it will give the two mega-majors a “virtual monopoly”.

Martin, who spent a chunk of his career working for EMI of course, is widely quoted as saying: “I am saddened that great companies have been swallowed up by the giants, and the domination of the recording and music publishing industry by Sony and Universal can only lead to a virtual monopoly in the European market. Is this what the people want? I always thought that democracy ensured a level playing field for our music industry, but I am wrong”.

Universal bounced back a quick response, saying that under Universal’s stewardship EMI will be able to enjoy a renaissance after a decade of uncertainty. According to the Telegraph, a spokesman for the company said: “Sir George has not spoken to anyone at Universal Music about this. If he did, we – as a long-standing music company which invests tens of millions in great British talent – would welcome the opportunity to explain how we will enhance that creative investment in EMI and its digital future. Universal Music is the right home for the company; we are music people. EMI will fare much better with us than with non-music owners, who only asset-strip the business”.

Although the three-strikes enabling Digital Economy Act was passed in something of a hurry in 2010, the enforced sending of letters to suspected file-sharers that it allows is now not likely to begin until 2014, according to The Register.

A civil servant from the Department Of Culture Media & Sport called Paul Kirkman revealed the new target date at an event called Creative Coalition in London yesterday.

Record labels buoyed by the passing of the DEA two years ago had hoped the first stage of the so called graduated response system for combating file-sharing would have been well underway by now, but various issues around how the enforced letter sending will work (rights owners will identify suspected file-sharers but internet service providers will send the notes) and legal challenges by BT and TalkTalk have seriously slowed things down.

Some now wonder whether British three-strikes will ever happen, despite some research from France and elsewhere showing that stern warning letters can deter a lot of file-sharers, even without the third strike deterrent taking place (which is probably a good thing – we don’t even know what that would be in the UK).

The Australian movie industry’s long running bid to force internet service providers in the country to act against file-sharing has failed, after a second appeal hearing ruled against it.

As previously reported, Aussie film and TV industry group AFACT began legal proceedings against ISP iiNet in 2008, arguing that the net firm knew some of its customers were accessing illegal sources of content via its servers, but did nothing to stop it, and that, under Australian copyright law, that amounted to so called authorising infringement.

Had AFACT won the legal fight, the ruling would have forced iiNet to routinely monitor the activity of its customers, and to put blocks in place to limit the accessing and sharing of unlicensed files. Quite how that would work isn’t clear, but that isn’t relevant anyway because at all stages the courts ruled against the movie industry body. Judges found in favour of iiNet at first instance in 2010, on appeal in 2011, and last week at Australia’s High Court, the last route of appeal for the anti-piracy organisation.

Authorising infringement is a similar concept to contributory infringement, that wider concept having been used to hold various file-sharing technology providers around the world liable for the infringement their services enable, even though they themselves do not get involved in distributing unlicensed content.

However, ISPs have generally been immune to authorising/contributory infringement claims, partly because in the US the Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically protects them, while in Europe they can claim protection from certain bits of European Union law. But in Australia no such explicit protection exists, hence this being a test case.

Though with the precedent set in all three stages of this lawsuit, it’s now pretty clear that Australian ISPs do not have obligations in this domain – and at the final appeal hearing in the Australian High Court last week, all five judges ruled in the net firm’s favour. Distinguishing that opinion from the Kazaa case (the one P2P legal action that was successfully pursued under Australian law) the judgement said that, unlike the providers of P2P services, iiNet had “no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system” to infringe copyright.

Needless to say, iiNet welcomed the ruling, with its CEO Michael Malone telling reporters: “iiNet has never supported or encouraged unauthorised sharing or file downloading. [But] increasing the availability of licensed digital content is the best, most practical approach to meet consumer demand and protect copyright. We have consistently said we are eager to work with the studios to make their very desirable material legitimately available to a waiting customer base – and that offer remains the same today”.

Although a movie industry case, the final ruling in the AFACT lawsuit will further motivate both the film and music industries in Australia to push for some sort of three-strike system to be introduced in the country, as in France and neighbouring New Zealand (and technically in the UK, though the system is yet to go live), so that while ISPs may not be forced to monitor their users’ activities, they will be forced to send out warning letters to those customers rights owners suspect of accessing illegal content.

With that in mind, AFACT MD Neil Gane told reporters: “Now that we have taken this issue to the highest court in the land, it is time for government to act. We are confident the government would not want copyright infringement to go on unabated across Australian networks especially with the rollout of the NBN [National Broadband Network]“.

The criminal case against MegaUpload might never get a hearing in court, because the company itself has never been served with criminal papers in the US, very possibly because it can’t be. This issue was discussed in an American court last week, with the judge overseeing the hearing (which was actually about what to do with all that offline Mega data) remarking that “I frankly don’t know that we are ever going to have a trial in this matter”.

According to the New Zealand Herald, Judge Liam O’Grady asked why the FBI hadn’t served the Mega company with any criminal papers during a discussion on what to do with the legitimate (ie non-copyright infringing) data stored on the former Mega servers, which were rented from an American company, and which were taken offline by US authorities back in January.

It was because the bulk of the content made available via the various Mega websites was stored on servers housed in the US that the American authorities were able to swoop in such a dramatic fashion, taking the Mega enterprise offline without warning.

But the Mega company had no official base in America, making it hard to actually hand a representative of the business any formal criminal proceedings. And the failure to hand over any such papers to an official representative could, O’Grady said last week, prevent any criminal case against the company from going ahead.

So why doesn’t the FBI just find a Mega office somewhere else in the world – company is incorporated in Hong Kong – fly out there and hand over the required paperwork? Well, according to Mega’s attorney, Ira Rothken, that wouldn’t work either, because the US authorities can’t pursue corporate criminal proceedings outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Civil proceedings could be filed anywhere in the world, and individuals can be charged in any country where extradition agreements allow, but a company cannot be charged under the American criminal law abroad.

Or so reckons Rothken. There does seem to be some confusion as to exactly how things should work here, but Mega’s attorney seems to think this is a big enough technicality to de-rail the American authorities’ entire case. Which would, O’Grady noted, make the whole debate over the Mega data irrelevant, because the feds might be forced to had back the server keys (as it were) to the rogue file-transfer firm.

Of course the seven Mega executives can still be charged individually for their part in running the allegedly criminal enterprise, though Rothken has another technicality to throw into the mix there too. He says that without the criminal case against the company, the only charges the US can fire at the Mega directors individually is copyright infringement, which has a maximum four year jail term in the States. And under the US’s extradition agreement with New Zealand only people accused of crimes that carry a five year jail term or more can be extradited.

American authorities are expected to say the Mega bosses, including founder Kim ‘Dotcom’ Schmitz, should be extradited as a member of an organised criminal group, a crime which carries the all important five year jail term. But it remains to be seen if that washes.

The legal wrangling continues.

As expected, yesterday the European Commission gave the all-clear, the big okay, the do-it-man-do-it-now to Sony/ATV’s bold plan to buy EMI Music Publishing.

As much previously reported, Sony is leading a consortium of investors in its bid to buy the EMI publishing firm, including its Sony/ATV partner the Michael Jackson estate, plus various equity funds and David Geffen. Although the EMI songs company will remain an autonomous entity, it will be controlled by Sony/ATV day to day, which will likely take over the administration of the former British major music company’s publishing catalogues, leaving a streamlined EMI team to handle A&R and songwriter relations.

The combined Sony/ATV/EMI will have a 30%+ market share, and will be by far the biggest operator in the songs market. Many, including competitor Warner Music and European indie labels trade body IMPALA, reckon such dominance should not be allowed, but Sony has successfully convinced EC competition regulators that those concerns are not justified, partly by committing to sell off a chunk of EMI’s UK-based catalogues, the biggest concern being regards the combined publisher’s dominance in the UK and Ireland markets.

Confirming the deal had been approved in Europe, the EC’s Competition Commissioner Joaquín Almunia said yesterday: “[The consortium] offered to divest valuable and attractive catalogues containing bestselling titles as well as works of successful and promising authors. I am therefore satisfied that the competitive dynamics in the online music publishing business will be maintained so as to ensure consumer choice and cultural diversity”.

Meanwhile the boss of Sony/ATV, Marty Bandier a former EMI Music Publishing chief who is relishing regaining control of his old catalogues, told reporters: “Having spent over seventeen years of my professional life helping to build EMI Music Publishing, today is not only an important milestone on the path to final approval, but a very special day for me, personally”.

Needless to say, the deal’s critics were not impressed with the relatively speedy EC decision. IMPALA’s Executive Chair Helen Smith told CMU: “We need to study the full decision in detail, but this is bad news for Europe’s publishers and writers, as well as for collecting societies and any label or online service which needs to be able to rely on fair terms to use music. In the wake of Martin Bandier’s confirmation this morning of expected job losses at both EMI and Sony, we are particularly concerned for all Sony and EMI’s employees and writers. We remain convinced that the impact of this merger on the livelihood of authors has been underestimated, while the ability of the remedies to secure future competition has been overestimated”.

Meanwhile Michel Lambot, co-founder of the PIAS Entertainment Group and Co-President of IMPALA, added: “This decision goes clearly against the official position of the EU to put knowledge and internet at the heart of its development”.

The Sony deal is still to be approved in the US, of course, though usually spanners are thrown into the works in big mergers like this by the Europeans not the Americans, so EC approval is significant.

Meanwhile, as also previously reported, Universal Music’s bid to buy the EMI record companies is still being considered in both the US and EU, the latter having put that particular proposal to a full three month investigation rather than reaching a speedy decision like in the case of Sony.

While criticising yesterday’s announcement from the EC, IMPALA noted that key to the Commission’s decision in the Sony case was the fact the entertainment giant does not own Sony/ATV outright, and will have an even smaller stake in EMI Music Publishing. The indie labels body added that it believed the argument that big rights owners are constrained in setting online pricing by the big download firms like iTunes had been rejected, which is important, because the same argument has been used by Universal in its application to competition regulators.

With Universal Music owning both its recordings and publishing businesses outright, and they being owned by one parent company in Vivendi, IMPALA will be hoping the EC giving approval to the Sony deal does not set a precedent that will be employed in the Universal acquisition. Continued Smith: “We understand the Commission has treated the [Sony] case as unique, concluding on the basis of its analysis of Sony’s power and the specificities of its corporate structure and rejecting other arguments such as the power of online players, which will send a strong message regarding the Universal/EMI case, now even more crucial”.

The European Commission will today green light the bid led by Sony to buy the EMI music publishing business, a takeover which will give Sony/ATV control of the EMI song catalogues, making for the biggest music publishing business in the world.

As previously reported, the Sony-led consortium offered EC competition regulators a number of concessions during the initial stage of the European investigation into the proposed deal, which some say will give Sony/ATV/EMI way too much dominance in the publishing sector, digital licensing and the collecting society system. And seemingly those concessions were enough to overcome opposition and concerns across Europe.

According to the Financial Times, the biggest concern for EC regulators was the dominance Sony/ATV/EMI would have over the Anglo-American catalogue in the UK market. The proposed sale of the Virgin-branded songs catalogue, plus the Famous UK catalogue and some key songs by prominent Anglo-American artists, was designed to specifically deal with those concerns. Seemingly some extra US-owned rights were also thrown in to further placate officials.

Although the Sony/ATV deal still needs approval in the US, and is also being investigated in Australia and Brazil, having secured approval in Europe with just a one-stage investigation is a considerable achievement, not least because it’s European regulators who are often hardest to please.

Some did speculate early on that Sony/ATV would have an easier time getting approval for their EMI purchase than Universal, which wants to buy the EMI record companies, mainly because of the ownership structure of both the existing Sony publishing business, and EMI Music Publishing post-acquisition.

The entertainment conglom does not own Sony/ATV outright – the Michael Jackson estate owns the other half – meaning the Sony recording and publishing businesses have never been as closely aligned as at the other major music firms. Meanwhile Sony and the Jackson estate will each be only minority shareholders in EMI Publishing, meaning the new acquisition will remain an autonomous entity, albeit controlled and managed by Sony/ATV day to day. This slightly complicated structure seemingly enabled Sony to persuade EC regulators to be less tough than they were with Universal in 2006 when it bought the original BMG publishing company.

Some wondered if those in the EC who are interested in the collecting society system might question Sony/ATV/EMI’s dominance in that space, though seemingly the fact so many publishing rights are licensed through the blanket licensing process went in Sony’s favour, it convincing regulators that a 31% market share would not give the publishing powerhouse too unfair an advantage in digital licensing negotiations. The company also added – as Universal has in its bid – that the big digital players, and especially Apple, are so dominant in that space that they, to an extent, dictate pricing.

Needless to say, pan-European indie label trade body IMPALA – which reckons both EMI deals, that together will make the two most dominant players in music even more dominant, are bad – expressed disappointment at last night’s reports that an EC all clear for the Sony transaction was incoming. Its Executive Chair Helen Smith told reporters: “It sounds like the worst possible result for European writers and publishers, as well as anyone who needs to rely on fair terms to access music”.

Assuming EC approval for the Sony/ATV deal is an indication this acquisition is going ahead, staffers at the EMI publishing house might be brushing up their CVs this weekend. As previously reported, a confidential report for investors leaked earlier this week revealed plans to cut over half the 515 jobs at EMI Music Publishing over two years, as Sony/ATV takes over various aspects of licensing and rights administration for the EMI catalogues, charging a fee to its new sister company for doing so. Such economies of scale could result in savings of $70 million a year.

After those revelations, taken from a report written in January, appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, the boss of Sony/ATV, Marty Bandier, yesterday sent an email to EMI publishing staffers in a bid to allay fears and panic, though, in confirming job cuts and remaining vague about when and how many, I’m not sure how much allaying the memo actually achieved.

Pointing out that plans for the integration of Sony/ATV and his former employer EMI Music Publishing were changing daily, and couldn’t be confirmed anyway until the acquisition has approval from all quarters, he called the claims in the New York Times “premature”. However, he said job cuts would be likely at both companies (so, that’s panic assured over at Sony/ATV too now), but that “the best and brightest employees” needn’t worry because their jobs would definitely be safe. So that’s alright then.

The email, published by Billboard, says: “Over the last several months, we have been working with many units of your company to develop a strategic integration plan. This plan changes daily, as we continue to analyse the vast amount of information and meet with the department and regional heads at EMI Music Publishing. Since various governmental agencies around the world are still reviewing the proposed transaction, it was, to us, premature and inappropriate to share our thinking publicly. It is unfortunate that the New York Times received this information while we are still developing this integration plan”.

He continued: “While we do not have a completed integration plan to date, I will share with you some of our thoughts as to that process. If the transaction is approved by all the necessary agencies around the world, our current plan is to reduce the total number of employees of the two companies. The exact numbers or percentages are not final. Since our companies remain separate, we continue to learn more about the existing structure of EMI Music Publishing, which is quite different than when I was there, and evaluate the information we receive. Without a doubt, it is our intention to retain the best and brightest employees at both companies. I will keep you apprised as all of these various events move forward”.

So there you go. Brussels should confirm its approval for Sony’s EMI deal later today. As previously reported, Universal’s bid is being considered via a fuller three month investigation, so a ruling in Europe won’t be made until August.

Axl Rose has written a second letter following on from last week’s announcing that he would not be attending Guns N Roses’ Rock N Roll Hall Of Fame induction last weekend, and that he did not want to be inducted in his absence. The letter, published on the official Guns N Roses website, thanks those who showed support for his decision, and apologises to Cleveland.

On the latter point, he wrote: “I would like to apologise to Cleveland, Ohio for not apologising to them beforehand for not attending [the induction ceremony] in their city. I think they know how much I genuinely love performing there. Cleveland does in fact rock”.

So that’s that sorted. As for the response to his no-show decision, he said: “It took a lot of focus and soul searching to be sincere and informative while making a genuine effort to be somewhat diplomatic … I still don’t exactly know or understand what the Hall is or how or why it makes money, where the money goes, who chooses the voters and why anyone or this board decides who, out of all the artists in the world that have contributed to this genre, officially ‘rock’ enough to be in the Hall?”

He continued: “This isn’t an attack. These are genuine issues I don’t have enough verified information on to have more than rough ideas. Certainly not enough information to make any judgments about”.

I’d point out that concerns about the running of the Hall Of Fame weren’t what Rose was complaining about last week, but apparently that’s just me being out to get him, or something. To the naysayers, Rose said: “Now that the smoke’s cleared a little, any desperate, misguided attacks have been just that, a pathetic stab at gossip, some lame vindictiveness, the usual entitlement crap, he’s obsessed, crazy, volatile, a hater. I once bought a homeless woman a slice of pizza who yelled at me she wanted soup. We got her the soup. You can get your own”.

You can read the letter in full here.

In other Guns N Roses news, former drummer Matt Sorum has revealed that he is in talks about a possible biopic about the band. He told VH1: “I’ve talked about doing a screenplay, and that’s actually something that I’m in talks about with a couple of pretty big people”.

He added: “If you look at rock and roll movies, they’ve never been done right… If there was a film about Guns N Roses, the thing about Guns N Roses that was different than all the butt rock bands in Hollywood was that it was down and dirty and punk rock and real. As much as anyone wants to say they want to try to lump it in with hair metal, it never was, because it was a different kind of energy. There was a more street, dark undercurrent happening that could be great on film”.