Kanye West is well know for his eccentricities.

So when he went on a Trump-praising, Jay Z-dissing rant in November 2016 during one of his Saint Pablo tour stops, it didn’t come as much of a surprise. His eight-day stay at a Los Angeles psychiatric center for “exhaustion,” however, drew whispers in the music community and shocked fans. The mental breakdown led to a canceled tour and thousands of disappointed fans–and now a $10 million lawsuit.

West’s touring company Very Good Touring filed the lawsuit against Lloyds of London, the firm charged with insuring his tour, alleging that the company is stalling on paying out claims relating to the tour’s cancellation.

A loss claim was filed two days after West was hospitalized at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Hospital Center, but his touring company still hasn’t been paid more than eight months later. The lawsuit alleges that the insurer is trying to blame West’s marijuana usage on the mental breakdown.

“[Lloyds] have neither paid on the multi million dollar claim nor denied the claim,” states the complaint filed Tuesday in a California federal court. “Nor have they provided anything approaching a coherent explanation about why they have not paid, or any indication if they will ever pay or even make a coverage decision, implying that Kanye’s use of marijuana may provide them with a basis to deny the claim and retain the hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums paid by Very Good.”

The lawsuit continues: “The stalling is emblematic of a broader modus operandi of the insurers of never-ending post-claim underwriting where the insurers hunt for some contrived excuse not to pay.”

The tour insurance was expected to guard against non-appearances and cancellations due to unforeseen perils such as illness. According to the lawsuit, an independent medical examination of West by a doctor hand-selected by the insurer’s counsel confirmed that he was “in no condition to resume the tour.”

West’s lawyers also accused the insurers of leaking his personal medical information to the press in the complaint.

“Plaintiff is informed and believes that the ‘planting’ of the Confidential Information with news outlets … was part and parcel of Defendants’ efforts to impair Plaintiff’s rights to the indemnity payments due under the Insurance Policies,” states the complaint, which nods to a non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

West is not suing the three additional insurance companies that insured his Saint Pablo tour, as they have already paid Very Good Touring for the cancellation.

Read the full lawsuit below.

Kanye West Lloyds by gmaddaus on Scribd

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kanye West Sues Insurer for $10M Over Canceled Saint Pablo Tour appeared first on Law Street.

The New York Times teamed up with music mogul Jay Z and illustrator Molly Crabapple to release a short op-ed film Thursday critiquing the United State’s war on drugs.

The film, which is titled “A History on the War on Drugs: From Prohibition to the Gold Rush,” is written and narrated by Jay Z, and is described by the Times as being “part history lesson about the war on drugs and part vision statement.”

Paired  perfectly with Crabapple’s vivid animations, Jay Z  critiques the double standards existing between drug dealers–more specifically between poor people of color and their wealthy white counterparts.

The project was proposed last year by Dream Hampton, the filmmaker and a co-author of Jay Z’s book “Decoded.” According to the New York Times:

Ms. Hampton wanted to tackle the contradiction raised by Michelle Alexander, the author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” in 2014: Why were white men poised to get rich doing the very same thing that African-American boys and men had long been going to prison for?

“In 1986, when I was coming of age, Ronald Reagan doubled down on the war on drugs, that had been started by Richard Nixon in 1971,” Jay says in the beginning of the film of the Nixon administration. “Drugs were bad, fried your brain and drug dealers were monsters, sole reason neighborhoods and major cities were failing.”

He goes on to explain how the federal government made a distinction between people who sold powder cocaine and people who sold crack cocaine, even though they were the same drug, but were consumed differently. This led to courts handing out mandatory life sentences for low-level drug sales–that just  so happened to specifically target African Americans. Jay Z says,

Even though white people used and sold crack more than Black people, somehow it was Black people who went to prison. The media ignored actual data to this day, crack it’s still talked about as Black problem.

For years people have struggled to understand the topic of mass incarceration of African Americans, especially since they make up around 13 percent of the U.S.  population, yet are 31 percent of those arrested for drug law violations, even though they use and sell drugs at the same rate as whites. This visually stunning op-ed continues to open up the dialogue on this topic, as well as help strive for necessary changes to our flawed judicial system

For a full transcript of the film click here

Watch the Video Below

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jay Z Explains Why the War on Drugs is an ‘Epic Fail’ appeared first on Law Street.

When Tidal launched it was supposed to be the next big thing in music streaming. Unfortunately, it has had some pitfalls and interesting diversions along the way–the latest is news of a lawsuit that Jay Z is filing against Tidal’s previous owners, claiming that they misled his team about the streaming company when he purchased it.

According to a Nordic business news outlet, Jay Z’s team recently wrote to some of the executives of WiMP; Tidal is a spinoff of that Scandinavian streaming service. The letters accused the shareholders of exaggerating how many subscribers Tidal had when Jay Z purchased it. While WiMP put the number at 530,000, the letters allege that that number was inflated.  While it’s unclear how WiMP may have inflated those numbers, it could have been because it counted people who were subscribers as a result of “bonus subscription deals” worked out with cable and phone companies.

Jay Z bought Tidal (and its parent company Aspiro) for approximately $57 million last year, and is filing suit seeking $15 million now as a result of the supposedly misrepresented numbers.

The Verge reports Tidal’s motivation for filing the lawsuit:

The growth in our subscriber numbers has been even more phenomenal than we’ve previously shared. It became clear after taking control of TIDAL and conducting our own audit that the total number of subscribers was actually well below the 540,000 reported to us by the prior owners. As a result, we have now served legal notice to parties involved in the sale.

However, it’s not all bad news for the streaming service–Tidal also shared some good news about its growth this week as well:

We are excited that one year after TIDAL launched, we have surpassed 3 million subscribers globally. The growth in our subscriber numbers has been even more phenomenal than we’ve previously shared.

Additionally, Tidal may be getting into the video streaming business. The company has already picked up a scripted series from YouTube, and reportedly wants to stream outside films as well as exclusives that it would produce. The new video features could be up and ready to go as early as June.

Tidal has had some bumps along the way since it launched last year. But it’s certainly disrupted the music industry, and may now be disrupting video streaming services. While Jay Z may be looking to the past for some retribution, it’s what is potentially ahead for Tidal that promises to be, at the very least, interesting.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jay Z is Suing Former Tidal Owners appeared first on Law Street.

America’s favorite (or least favorite, depending on who you ask) blonde is back in the headlines this week: Taylor Swift is being sued by musician Jessie Braham over the lyrics to her song “Shake it Off.” Even though neither the lyrics nor the melody of Braham’s song are identical to Swift’s song, he has launched a lawsuit worth $42 million, and has also demanded he receive writing credit on Swift’s song. Braham’s case seems less than credible and with the massive legal resources at her disposal, it is almost inevitable that Swift will never pay him a cent–yet Swift’s case is only the latest in a string of high profile intellectual property lawsuits involving pop stars.

Earlier this month, Jay-Z and Timbaland defeated a lawsuit brought against them by Osama Ahmed Fahmy, who claimed the duo’s song “Big Pimpin'” had infringed upon the copyright of his uncle Baligh Hamdi’s song “Khosara Khosara.” Timbaland had already paid $100,000 in 2001 to secure the usage of the flutes from Hamdi’s song as a sample for the track, but Fahmy argued that the rights to the sample were invalid. After testimony from both Jay-Z and Timbaland, the judge threw the case out. Fahmy’s lawyer announced plans to appeal the decision, but with the massive legal power behind the hip-hop duo, Fahmy is fighting an uphill battle.

Copyright lawsuits against singers and songwriters are nothing new–but what are the legal bases for these kinds of suits? Read on to learn about the history of copyrights in music and the current cases in play.

The Complexities of a Copyright Case

A copyright:

Protects a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictoral or graphic, audiovisual, or architectural work, or a sound recording, from being reproduced without the permision of the copyright owner…the author(s) may transfer the copyright to any other party if she(they) choose(s) to do so. Subject to certain limitations, the owner of a copyright has the sole right to authorize reproduction of the work, creation of a work derived from the work, distribution of copies of the work, or public performance or display of the work. This right lasts for the life of the author plus fifty years; or in the case of a copyright held by an entity, for seventy-five years.

Copyright law is well-defined and there is a substantial legal precedent in the U.S. that protects authors from losing the rights to their content. However, modern music relies heavily on multiple producers and record labels, instead of a single artist recording and copyrighting their work. Increasing the number of “authors” increases the complexity of the copyright and leaves more openings for copyright infringement suits in the future.

Music has also been transformed by the introduction of sampling–taking pieces from a pre-existing song and incorporating them into the melody of a new song. Sampling in modern American music was born in the 1970s, as hip hop DJs experimenting with multiple turntables mixed samples from older songs with newer hip hop records. The 1980s created a new variety of dance and pop music, and sampling spread quickly from the alternative world of hip hop into the mainstream. When so many hit songs are reliant on samples, it is difficult to discern where sampling ends and copyright infringement begins. Most artists pay for the rights to sample a given track, but there are many pieces that are considered part of the public domain or that are old enough that artists assume that the copyright has expired on them, making them fair game for an unlicensed sample. There is also a “50 second/5 second, 8 bar/1 bar” myth in the music industry that informs artists that if they use brief enough clips of another song, it does not technically count as a sample and they do not need to file for the privilege to use that song. In reality, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that:

The use of a two-second sample was an infringement of the sound recording copyright. The court went further stating that when it came to sound recording there was no permissible minimum sanctioned under copyright law.

Major pop artists who have to promote albums and perform in the public eye should be less likely to commit copyright infringement. They are signed to major labels that have impressive legal departments, are surrounded by handlers who vet all of their songs and work with production teams that are familiar with the intricacies of copyright law.  Yet prominent members of the music world still violate copyright law, both on purpose and unintentionally. The “Blurred Lines” case of 2015, which resulted in Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams paying $5.4 million in damages to Marvin Gaye’s family, represents the ambiguous nature of copyright law in pop music. Thicke and Williams did not directly sample Gaye’s hit “Got to Give it Up” but they claimed that they were “inspired” by Gaye’s work. It is not up to the legal system to police what inspires an artist, but that word can cover all manner of sins. Let’s examine the 1950s and 1960s as a case study of what happens when musicians are “inspired” by their contemporaries–and disregard copyright law on their way to the recording booth:

Copyright Conflict and Rock and Roll 

Copyright infringement is by no means a recent trend in the music world. In the 1950s, copyright law was hardly the organized mechanism that it is today and it was not applied to protect all races and genders equally. Well-publicized lawsuits regarding copyright infringement may seem like a recent development, but the theft of intellectual property has been thriving for decades in the music industry. One of the most infamous cases of plagiarism in American musical history involves black jazz and blues musicians of hte 1950s. Examine, for example, Chess Records, the Chicago-based record label that launched Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Etta James, Little Walter and Howlin’ Wolf. The artists signed to the Chess Records label were pioneers of blues and rock and roll, influencing countless musicians, including the Rolling Stones, who named their band after one of Muddy Waters’ original songs. Although Chess Records’ musicians were legends in their own time, they were often denied paychecks or paid significantly less than their white contemporaries. Furthermore, some musicians blatantly stole content from the Chess Records stable. Both Willie Dixon and Chuck Berry filed suit against multiple artists for stealing their melodies and lyrics–the most famous of these lawsuits was leveled against the Beach Boys for their unlicensed use of the melody from Berry’s “Sweet Little Sixteen” in their song “Surfin’ USA.”

Then there is the problematic nature of Elvis Presley’s success. It is obvious that Elvis was an incredible talent who shaped modern music, yet his success also relied greatly on black rock and roll music. The famous song “Hound Dog” was in fact originally recorded by “Big Mama” Thornton and Elvis’ version was intended to be a cover, yet history has painted his rendition as the original. Presley openly acknowledged that his music was inspired by black pioneers yet he has consistently received a far greater share of the credit for the rock and roll revolution than any of his black contemporaries. Elvis did not invent the style in which he sang and danced, he simply made it popular with white audiences. Elvis did not directly infringe upon the lyrics or melodies of other artists, but imagine if he was singing on stages across the country today. Would Thicke and William’s “inspiration” argument apply to his music or would he be taken to court? If music is a medium that incorporates the most exciting aspects of our predecessors’ lyrical and melodic abilities, their stage presence and public personas, where do we draw the line between a heartfelt tribute and plagiarism? These are still questions we struggle to answer today.

Modern Copyright Laws

Modern copyright legislation has expanded and adapted to protect authors regardless of race or record label.  Beginning in the 1990s, the Supreme Court and host of other appellate and circuit courts ruled on various intellectual property cases in the music industry, largely coming down on the side of the authors. In 2012, the introduction of SOPA and PIPA represented a conscious legislative shift towards protecting intellectual property in the Internet age. In 2015 alone, ten bills have been proposed to expand copyright holders’ privileges and protections. However, despite this extended legislative protection, authors may still struggle to receive damages in a lawsuit. The Blurred Lines case was exceptional because it is one of only a handful of music copyright infringement cases in the past decade in which significant damages were awarded to the defendant. The defendants (Marvin Gaye’s family) had access to a powerhouse of a legal team, but not every author has access to such representation. Without sufficient funds and skilled legal representatives, many authors may not be able to pursue a lengthy and bureaucratic court battle.

Conclusion

Copyright lawsuits are not a novel phenomenon in American music. While the spike in high-profile musical lawsuits in the past two years may suggest that litigation is becoming more popular in the music industry, it is less the lawsuits themselves that are garnering our attention than the artists. When major pop stars are put on trial for copyright infringement, the spotlight is thrown onto the complex and unpredictable nature of intellectual property law. However, that focus only stays on the issue for as long as the pop star takes the stand–the minute they are acquitted, we lose interest in their copyright compliance. Many cases of copyright infringement are flimsy or invalid, but it is important to treat them with respect.  Our favorite musicians may make us dance and cry and air guitar, but they don’t have the right to profit off of other’s hard work.

Resources

Betsy Rosenblatt: Copyright Basics

Thomas Kennedy: The History of Sampling

CNN: Haters gonna sue: Taylor Swift hit with copyright infringement lawsuit

Manatt Phelps and Philllips LLP: Blurred Lines-The Sequel: Post-Trial Rulings Edition

Time: Elvis Rocks. But He’s Not the First

The Atlantic: Getting Elvis’s Legacy Right

Michelle Fabio: 8 Basic Facts Every Musician Should Know About Copyright Law

USA Today: Jay Z Prevails in Major Copyright Case

Mita Carriman: 4 Music Law Myths That Indie Musicians Need To Unlearn

Stanford University Libraries: Copyright Law Changes that May Affect You

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Copyrights, Sampling and Rock ‘n’ Roll: Intellectual Property in the Music Industry appeared first on Law Street.

Is Beyonce leaving Jay Z’s Tidal? What did a family’s massive charity actually spend its money on? ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Music Streaming Site Tidal Could Be Losing Its Queen

Here’s an update for my music lovers on Jay Z’s new Spotify-esque streaming site Tidal. As expected, the $20 a month service isn’t exactly revolutionizing the music industry like Hov and his famous friends had hoped. Despite boasts that they pay the highest percentage of royalties to music artists and songwriters within the music-streaming market, Tidal still continues to face waves of criticism from music experts and other artists. Read full article here.

#2 The Best Legal Tweets of the Week

The excitement over finals and the latest round of bar exam results has died down and now lawyers and law students are back to the daily grind of being overworked and over-caffeinated. Check out the best legal tweets of the week. See the slideshow here.

#3 Your Donation to This Cancer “Charity” Funded Online Dating Subscriptions

Every few years, a scandal breaks where it is discovered that a charity isn’t donating as much as it claims of the funds that it raises. But a new story coming out of Tennessee puts pretty much any other misbehaving charity to shame. A civil complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revealed that four related charities, all run by members of the same extended family, donated only three percent of the $187 million they raised from 2008-2012. The rest of the money went to items for the family. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Here’s an update for my music lovers on Jay Z’s new Spotify-esque streaming site Tidal. As expected, the $20 a month service isn’t exactly revolutionizing the music industry like Hov and his famous friends had hoped.

Despite boasts that they pay the highest percentage of royalties to music artists and songwriters within the music-streaming market, Tidal still continues to face waves of criticism from music experts and other artists. However, none of that compares to the potential embarrassment Tidal may face if Jay Z’s wife and co-owner Beyoncé is forced by Sony to remove her music.

In an extensive look at Tidal’s shortcomings by Bloomberg Businessweek, writer Devin Leonard calls the service “a complete disaster,” highlighting one huge problem threatening Tidal’s future. After a PR blunder ruined financial backing talks with Sprint, Tidal was short on the cash it needed to pay hefty royalty requests from Sony and Warner.

Leonard writes,

When [Jay Z] acquired Aspiro, the change of ownership meant he had to renegotiate its streaming contracts with the three major record companies: Universal, Warner, and Sony Music Entertainment. Universal distributes the records of some of Roc Nation’s artists, so Jay Z was able to quickly reach an agreement with that company. But music industry people who are familiar with the negotiations and forbidden from discussing them publicly say that Sony and Warner are asking Tidal for large advances in return for the right to feature their artists’ catalogs.

If Jay Z can’t come up with the cash for Sony, he faces the possibility that Tidal might lose albums from some of its co-owners, most painfully Beyoncé, a Sony artist.

Not Beyoncé! Of the 15 mega stars sharing the stage during Tidal’s illuminati-worthy launch, Beyoncé and her promised Tidal-exclusive content (i.e. “Feeling Myself” music video ft. Nicki Minaj) was one of the bigger selling points for people asking themselves “why pay.”

But would Sony really pull all of Beyoncé’s music catalogue from her own company? Well it wouldn’t be a first for the music industry giant, which recently removed artists including Adele, Hozier, and Miguel from SoundCloud due to a similar licensing impasse.

Another big issue threatening the fate of Tidal is its user base. Tidal advertises having 900,000 users, but analysts who spoke with Bloomberg suspect that many of them signed up for free trials and will cancel when they have to start paying.

All in all it’s not a good look for Jay Z if he loses his wife’s music or if he loses the majority of his users after their free trials expire. Despite having shown an affinity for business in other pursuits including a highly successful clothing line and record label, Jay Z might be drowning with Tidal.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Music Streaming Site Tidal Could Be Losing Its Queen appeared first on Law Street.

Jay Z’s “Decoded” ghostwriter may need to work on her discretion after spilling some of the Carters’ philanthropic secrets publicly via Twitter. The ghostwriter, dream hampton, is a writer, award-winning filmmaker, and social justice organizer active in the Black Lives Matter movement. According to hampton, Jay Z and Beyoncé shelled out tens of thousands of dollars to bail out jailed protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson, but had requested their charitable actions be kept under wraps.

In a string of tweets posted Sunday that have now been deleted (but were screenshot by Complex) hampton wrote,

I’m going to tweet this and I don’t care if Jay gets mad

When we needed money for bail for Baltimore protestors, I asked hit Jay up, as I had for Ferguson , wired tens of thousands in mins.

When BLM needed infrastructure money for the many chapters that we’re growing like beautiful dandelions, Carters wrote a huge check.

…and more stuff, too much to list actually, that they always insist folk keep quiet.

Later that night, hampton went on to clarify her tweets which she later called “error ridden,” writing:

Jay & B for stacks. It’s true they gave, which is why I tweeted it. but I erased it within minutes, because ppl believe what they want to.

— dream hampton (@dreamhampton) May 18, 2015

ok, let me give password back to my assistant. Just came on here to say I was not in some foxhole texting Jay & B for bail money.

— dream hampton (@dreamhampton) May 18, 2015

They gave cuz that’s what they do. & should I ever get major bread, I’m gonna be Howard Hughes, wiring out money anonymously too

— dream hampton (@dreamhampton) May 18, 2015

Hampton’s honesty may have been motivated by critics consistently condemning the Carters for not speaking out publicly after the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray, which resulted in protests from thousands in Ferguson and Baltimore. In actuality the notoriously private couple, whose combined net worth is estimated at over $1 billion, had quietly been active with their contributions, which in many ways says a lot about their generosity.

Bankrolling bail money isn’t the only contribution the Carters have made to the Black Lives Matter movement. According to Billboard, Jay Z also reportedly helped smuggle in “I Can’t Breathe” T-shirts to players at a December Brooklyn Nets game against the Cleveland Cavaliers, and that same month met with New York governor Andrew Cuomo to discuss possible reforms for the justice system.

Jay Z and Beyoncé’s reps have neither confirmed nor denied these rumored contributions, but they may not be too happy with their loose lipped associate. She may also be in a bit of trouble, as she’s now notifying everyone with her Twitter bio that she is on hiatus.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jay Z and Beyonce: Secret Activists? appeared first on Law Street.

The number one post on Law Street last week was written by Alexis Evans, who provided warnings about a secret TSA checklist for spotting terrorists. Check out her article if you want to avoid behaviors that could lead to some extra security scrutiny. The number two post, also written by Alexis Evans, discussed Jay Z’s new company–Tidal. Tidal may revolutionize the music industry, or it may end up pushing users back to pirating music. Finally, the number three post was written by Anneliese Mahoney about the banning of smart watches in college classrooms. Professors are concerned that they would help students cheat, and don’t want to see them brought in on test day. ICYMI, check out this week’s best of the week from Law Street.

#1 TSA Has Secret Checklist to Spot Terrorists. Hint: Don’t Yawn at Security

This checklist is part of a controversial TSA program to identify potential terrorists based on behaviors that “indicate stress or deception.” The program is known as the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT. SPOT is operated by trained individuals known as ‘Behavior Detection Officers’ who observe and interact with passengers during screenings. Read the full article here.

#2 Tidal: Music Industry Revolution or Expensive Setback?

How would you feel about a music streaming service with CD quality sound, video and editorial content, full offline capabilities, and exclusive tracks from your favorite artists? Sounds amazing, right? But is it worth ditching your free Spotify account for a $20-a-month fee? Rapper and business mogul Jay Z thinks that it is, and has enlisted a crew of Illuminati grade artists to back him. Read the full article here.

#3 Smartwatch Scare: Will Schools Ban Watches to Prevent Cheating?

In a lot of ways it’s easier than ever for students to cheat on exams. Many students now have small handheld devices that we can use to access pretty much the whole of human knowledge–I’m talking about smartphones, of course. Smartphones have been banned from our classrooms, particularly during exam time, since they became popular. But now schools are trying to keep up by banning the latest form of mobile technology: smartwatches. For some schools, the easiest way to do that is to ban watches altogether. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

How would you feel about a music streaming service with CD quality sound, video and editorial content, full offline capabilities, and exclusive tracks from your favorite artists? Sounds amazing, right? But is it worth ditching your free Spotify account for a $20-a-month fee? Rapper and business mogul Jay Z thinks that it is, and has enlisted a crew of Illuminati grade artists to back him.

The new music streaming website Tidal, also known as TidalHiFi, promises to revolutionize the music industry by becoming the first “artist owned” music streaming platform of its kind. That sounds like a great way to solve some of the problems artists have with the music industry, like getting next to nothing for music royalties. But it’s not solving a problem for consumers–it’s creating one. Tidal subscriptions will end up costing listeners $20 for high-definition streaming and $10 for regular quality, with no free ad-supported option.

The fact of the matter is that music listeners don’t want to pay for music, especially when they can easily get it for free. Spotify, which is the current leader in online streaming, attempted to solve that problem by starting out with a free ad tier in its service that allows listeners to enjoy their music mixed with ads first before deciding whether or not to upgrade to the premium benefits of its subscription version, which costs $10. That worked for Spotify, but with no free version to entice listeners, convincing anyone to pony up $20 for Tidal is a tough sell.

One thing Tidal does have working for it is a list of top names in the music industry invested in it, including Nicki Minaj, Beyonce, Daft Punk, Rihanna, Kanye West, Madonna, Alicia Keys, and Taylor Swift. Convincing Swift to come back to online streaming is impressive, especially after the singer famously broke up with Spotify last year over a disagreement with how artists on the site are compensated. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, she stated “valuable things should be paid for.” Tidal’s plan to offer a few exclusive tracks is nice, but still not a huge selling point. If Tidal were somehow able to make it so people could only listen to music from these artists on its site, they would really be getting somewhere.

You can watch some of the platform’s celebrity supporters below in Tidal’s press conference:

Not every artist supports the new platform. Singer Lily Allen was pretty vocal about her apprehension by voicing her first impressions of the site in a series of tweets that posed some valid concerns. Allen writes:

i LOVE Jay z so much, but TIDAL is soon expensive compared to other perfectly good streaming services, he’s taken the biggest Artists

— lily (@lilyallen) March 30, 2015

made them exclusive to TIDAL (am i right in thinking this ?), people are going to swarm back to Pirate sites in droves

— lily (@lilyallen) March 30, 2015

sending traffic to torrent sites. up and coming (not yet millionaires) artists are going to suffer as a result.

— lily (@lilyallen) March 31, 2015

Making content exclusive to Tidal may in fact push people only interested in hearing these artists’ music for free back to pirating sites as an alternative, which would make all artists suffer. While Jay Z’s idea sounds cool, I’m not convinced it will somehow revolutionize the music industry. A greater quality music experience is definitely something to strive for, but it’s also important to keep in mind consumers’ desires and not just artists’ pockets.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tidal: Music Industry Revolution or Expensive Setback? appeared first on Law Street.

Beyoncé and Jay Z just received some probably upsetting news–they’re being sued. A Hungarian folk singer, Mitsou, or Mónika Juhász Miczura, is claiming that 29 percent of Drunk in Love uses her music. Artist Timbaland is also being sued, given that he co-produced the power couple’s song. Watch the video below to hear the song in question.

Do you hear that sort of high-pitched singing in the background, particularly for the first 30 seconds or so? Mitsou is claiming that’s her, and was part of a song she recorded with her folk band Ando Drom. She claims that it’s been edited and altered, but it is still her voice. In addition, she claims that overall, her vocals and music feature on roughly one-and-a-half minutes of a five-and-a-half minute song–or just under thirty percent. According to E! here is what Mitsou claims is the actual breakdown:

Mitsou claims ‘Drunk in Love’ begins with her voice singing an a cappella solo for the first 13 seconds of the song. After this introduction, she purports that her ‘voice continues to sing as Beyoncé begins to sing’—up until the 41 second mark. Mitsou states that her vocals join Jay Z when he raps in the song from 3:14 until 4:05, a total of 51 seconds

The song that Beyoncé, Jay Z, and Timbaland supposedly took from is entitled “Bajba, Bajba Pelem.” The song was also released in the United States in 1996, under the English name “Gypsy Life on the Road.” That song doesn’t appear to be available anywhere online, but here is a song by her band with an almost identical title, and definitely sounds very similar to my admittedly very untrained ear.

It’s not just the fact that her voice may have been stolen by Beyoncé and Jay Z that offends Mitsou. It’s also the way in which her music was allegedly used. The original Hungarian song was described by Mitsou as evocative of “hopelessness, when one can no longer trust anyone but her own mother and God.” Beyoncé’s Drunk in Love is certainly about a significantly different topic–sexual relationships between long-term partners. Mitsou also purportedly has issues regarding how her song was used to provide sort of an exotic background noise for Beyoncé’s music.

The suit argues that the use of Mitsou’s music was a copyright infringement, and it was filed last week in a Manhattan Supreme Court. It asks for unspecified damages. It also asks for the song to stop being distributed, but given that the album on which Drunk in Love appeared was the fastest-selling album on iTunes–ever–and sold five million copies worldwide, I doubt it’ll slow down the spread of the song. And that’s not even including all the times (presumably a ton) that the song was illegally downloaded.

Beyoncé, Jay Z, and Timbaland are nowhere close to being the first artists to be accused of infringing copyright; however, we’ll have to wait and see who ends up being right.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beyoncé and Jay Z Sued Over Song “Drunk in Love” appeared first on Law Street.

I don’t know about you, but I had a great Labor Day. My sister Ariel flew up for the weekend, and we stuffed our days full of fun activities like seeing Book of Mormon on Broadway and going to a Yankees vs. Red Sox Game. We laughed, cheered, and created the “Adventures of Stick Figure Amber” – where I drew our annoyingly absentee sister into every single picture and gave her some wacky adventures of her own in an effort to pretend she was there.

Perhaps the highlight of this trip was what we did on Saturday and Sunday: attend Jay Z’s “Made in America” music festival in Philadelphia. We saw tons of great acts – one being Kanye West. (We also saw that in our advanced old age of early-to-late twenties, we were perhaps already too old for this type of event. I’ve never wanted to say “Do your parents know you are here?” more than when I saw all those pre-teens dressed in practically nothing openly drinking and doing drugs. Kids today! But that is straying from the point…)

As Ariel and I danced (rather I jumped up and down like an idiot while Ariel stood still glaring at me with disdain) and people-watched, we had no idea what shameful secrets were brewing just underneath the surface. (That might be an overly dramatic opening to what I am about to write.)

The lawsuit about which I am going to tell you is not really all that funny or even out of the ordinary; however, it is really exciting because it kind of, sort of, on a tangent, not really but I’m counting it deals with an event that I was attending. And that makes it interesting to me if to no one else.

Courtesy of gifsoup.

Did you know that “Made in America” the music festival was named after a Jay Z and Kanye song with the same name? Brooklyn rapper Joel McDonald didn’t. Or rather, he knew it was named after a song with the same title, but he was under the impression that it was his song, not the rap legend duo’s. He came to this conclusion based on the fact that he sang and sold on iTunes this song in 2009, but it was done by Jay Z and West in 2011 — with no mention of McDonald there.

Let’s compare…

McDonald’s song:

Jay Z and Kanye’s song:

Are they the same? McDonald hopes people will think they are close enough, because to celebrate the third annual “Made in America” festival, now located in Los Angeles as well, McDonald sued for $3 million for copyright infringement in Manhattan Supreme Court.

What do you think: Will Jay Z soon be in a little less of an empire state of mind or will McDonald find out that New York isn’t the concrete jungle were dreams are made for everyone? Was Kanye acting more stupidly or did McDonald say something when he gon’ end up apologin’? Will Jay Z…I could go on with these all day.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawsuits and Copyright Infringement Made in America appeared first on Law Street.

This week we saw the shocking, leaked video of Solange Knowles physically attacking brother in-law Jay Z while her sister, Beyoncé, looked on. I’ll admit that it’s natural to be entertained by celebrities misbehaving, but putting that element aside, where does surveillance and security end and privacy begin? Elevator cameras are installed for security purposes, but this is a prime example of how surveillance can be misused. We see cameras on buildings, inside elevators, and just about everywhere we go without questioning how that footage is being used, or perhaps misused. The common use of surveillance technology will continue to increase if left unchecked — especially in the law enforcement.

This increased acceptance of security surveillance has contributed to law enforcement taking new measures to monitor us all on a grander scale and for longer periods of time.  New surveillance technologies have emerged that allow local law enforcement to use special aircraft equipped with powerful cameras to capture and record real-time images over large amounts of space. Not only will these cameras record a broader area, they will also have the capability to record for longer lengths of time as compared to traditional camera-equipped helicopters.

These digital technologies are capable of motion detection and zoom of movement. This means no matter how far away a person is, his or her movement can be detected and observed more closely with the zoom capabilities. Persistent Surveillance Systems is one of the companies assisting local law enforcement with their missions to decrease crime and bring criminals to justice through the use of surveillance technology.

The Ohio-based company touts itself as a full-service, wide-area surveillance provider with experience in border control, law enforcement operations, and event security. Persistent Surveillance Systems even reached out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and convinced it to use the technology to monitor the streets of Compton, with one big selling point being that this method is less expensive than using the police helicopters. LA County provides just one, though by no means is it the only, example of where this monitoring is employed.

It is unclear how successful Los Angeles’ use of this type of surveillance technology is  in an attempt to quell crime because no data has yet been released. What is clear, however, is that this technology is so expansive it isn’t limited to targeting criminals. The footage also includes law-abiding citizens carrying on the regular functions of their day. Some may argue that being constantly recorded isn’t troubling because they have nothing to hide, but where does the trade off of privacy for security end?

With little to no regulation of this technology and the dependence on private companies to provide this surveillance service, the possibility of misuse increases. There are many more questions than answers, but we must be aware of the possibilities and consequences of being constantly watched. We all have the right to privacy. How far are we willing to use our technological capabilities to impede that?

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [idrewuk via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You and Beyonce Have Something in Common: Constant Surveillance appeared first on Law Street.

So, how many of you caught the Grammy Awards this weekend?

If you missed it, you should totally check out the recap post I wrote yesterday. It was a pretty epic night, complete with a weird Taylor Swift head banging incident and Daft Punk robot love.

But! The highlight of this year’s Grammys was definitely, without a doubt, Beyoncé and Jay Z’s “Drunk in Love” duet. It was so sexy. How sexy?

Dying over here.

Ridiculous amounts of sexy.

This performance isn’t notable just because all of us felt a universal need to go take a cold shower after watching it. As Alyssa Rosenberg points out on Think Progress, it’s also got a political edge to it.

Folks, Mr. and Mrs. Carter are proving that marriage can be awesome.

Now, I’ve written before about how the institution of marriage can be super problematic. It’s historically rooted in the buying and selling of women — complete with name changes to indicate the changing hands of property owners — and while it’s a different animal now here in the U.S., it’s still a source of major oppression. Spousal abuse and domestic violence still run rampant, women are still disproportionately responsible for the second or third shift of child rearing and housekeeping, and of course, there’s that nasty beast called monogamy. It’s got a shit reputation for making people feel trapped and unfulfilled — assuming they’re even sticking to it.

So, yeah. Marriage can be a bum deal. Which is why divorce rates are depressingly high, marriage rates are tellingly low, and movies like Runaway Bride are so goddamn relatable.

And that’s a problem for the political Right. They’d like to sell marriage all day — the heterosexual, monogamous kind, at least. For the conservatives, marriage is the ideal. The goal we’re all working toward. The bitter end.

But wait — isn’t that the Left’s view as well? Honestly, pretty much. One night stands and extended bachelorhood might be glorified on TV (Barney Stinson, anyone?), but really, even How I Met Your Mother’s ultimate single guy tied the knot eventually. Politically, the Left is all about marriage as well.

I mean, really, who are we kidding? The movement for gay rights has been a movement for gay marriage rights. Even the queers, who are supposed to be little unicorns of unconventional-relationship-forming light, are obsessed with marriage these days. It’s just reality.

So, when Jay Z and Beyoncé — two ridiculously hot, successful people who just happen to be married to one another — take the stage at the Grammys and give the single sexiest performance ever in the history of the world, we all have to sit up and pay attention.

Because it’s like a collective light bulb just went off. Aha! This is what marriage can look like.

Over at Think Progress, Alyssa argued that the Carters’ performance could be a major asset for the Right, if mobilized correctly. Conservatives could sell marriage licenses faster than hotcakes if they hired Bey and Jay to be their spokesmodels.

But I’d like to take it one step further. Sure, the Carters could sell a traditional marriage ideal for the Right — except, they don’t fit into it themselves. The conservative marriage model is dreary and Puritanical. It takes a Calvinist attitude to relationships — it’s hard work, and not much play. It’s a commitment between partners and helpmates, not so much a joyful companionship.

And I’m sorry, but who really wants in on that? Not Beyoncé and Jay Z. Definitely not.

So, instead of serving as a sales pitch for the political Right, I think the Carters are offering a radical redefinition of marriage.

Here are two people who have actual fun together. Who respect each other. Who actively resist racist and sexist norms built into the marriage model. (Did you know that they both changed their names upon legalizing? Jay Z’s an awesome feminist husband and I love him.) These are two separate and independent people, and they’ve come together not because they need each other, but because they want one another.

This is a marriage that doesn’t look like work. It looks like fun.

So, with that, here’s the full video of Beyoncé and Jay Z totally owning the Grammys.

Now that’s a marriage I wouldn’t mind being in.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [idrewuk via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beyoncé and Jay Z Did Some Feminist Marriage Queering at the Grammys appeared first on Law Street.