This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: A stunning early end to the criminal trial over Eagles frontman Don Henley’s allegedly stolen notes; a copyright case filed by Bad Bunny against fan who posted concert footage to YouTube; Linkin Park hits back at a lawsuit filed by a man briefly in the band; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: The Curious Case of Don Henley’s Stolen Notes
Weeks into a blockbuster trial over accusations that three men conspired to sell stolen pages of notes created by Eagles frontman Don Henley while writing “Hotel California,” Manhattan prosecutors dropped a bombshell last week: Maybe the stolen notes had … never been stolen in the first place?
Of course, that had been the primary refrain of the defendants all along. Glenn Horowitz, a rare books dealer, Craig Inciardi, a former curator at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and Edward Kosinski, a memorabilia auctioneer, argued from the start that the notes had simply been given to a journalist in the 1970s as he was writing a book about the Eagles. At the start of the trial last month, one of their lawyers said prosecutors had “distorted the history” to charge three “innocent men” and would be “apologizing at the end of this case.”
At a stunning hearing on Wednesday — midway through the trial, after Henley and longtime manager Irving Azoff had already testified — the district attorney’s office didn’t quite apologize, but did alert the judge that it would drop the charges against the three men. What sparked the sudden reversal? A trove of new evidence that Henley had previously withheld under attorney-client privilege, some of which dealt directly with the core question about whether the notes had been stolen.
The judge was none too pleased, saying that Henley and Azoff had chosen to “obfuscate and hide information that they believed would be damaging to their position that the lyric sheets were stolen.” He also chided prosecutors for having been “manipulated” into bringing the charges, though he praised them for “eating a slice of humble pie” once new evidence had come to light.
Following the stunning collapse of the case and the judge’s statements, Henley’s attorney responded on his behalf, saying the rock star been “victimized by this unjust outcome” and would “pursue all his rights in the civil courts.” A spokesman for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg declined to comment.
For all the details, go read our full story — featuring the backstory of the case, all the key quotes from the judge, and what defense attorneys had to say about the sudden dismissal.
Other top stories this week…
TWITTER MUSIC CASE SURVIVES – A federal judge ruled that music publishers could move forward with a copyright lawsuit filed against X Corp. over allegations of widespread copyright infringement on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. The judge dismissed major portions of the case, but allowed some of lawsuit’s core allegations — that X essentially enabled illegal behavior by its users by refusing to crack down on them — to move ahead.
SONY RESPONDS TO BIAS SUIT – Sony Music hit back hard at a lawsuit filed by a former assistant to Columbia Records chief executive Ron Perry over allegations that the company discriminated against white job applicants, arguing that the claims were “contradictory and false” and merely designed to “harass her former employer.” The new case came amid increased scrutiny of race-conscious corporate diversity practices in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that outlawed so-called affirmative action in college admissions.
LIZZO CASE ON ICE FOR NOW – The bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Lizzo by three of her former backup dancers is going to be on pause for the immediate future, after a Los Angeles judge halted all proceedings while the star appeals a recent ruling. Lizzo is challenging a decision earlier this year that refused to dismiss the case under California’s anti-SLAPP law.
BAD BUNNY’S CONCERT CASE – The superstar Puerto Rican rapper filed a lawsuit against a concertgoer who posted videos from a recent show to YouTube, arguing that he was essentially forced to sue after the alleged bootlegger demanded that YouTube keep the clips online. The case highlights the takedown process under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which allows an accused infringer to get their content reposted if they so choose – but also exposes them to a lawsuit like the one Bad Bunny filed this week.
IS YOUTUBE ‘UNION-BUSTING’? – There’s a dispute brewing over the sudden dismissal earlier this month of more than three dozen YouTube Music contract workers, who had voted last year to unionize. The staffers, who oversaw content for the music-streaming service’s 80 million subscribers, have called the move “union-busting” and illegal retaliation against their right to collectively bargain. But Google and subcontractor Cognizant say that “nobody was laid off” and that simply the contract with YouTube had “expired at its natural end date.”
HAGAR’S CANTINA CLASH – Sammy Hagar won a preliminary injunction barring an allegedly unauthorized Hollywood location of his Cabo Wabo Cantina from continuing to use the chain’s name and branding while their dispute plays out in court. The judge barred the alleged rogue franchisee from “representing to the public, in any way, that the restaurant is an authorized Cabo Wabo Cantina restaurant.”
TIME IS A VALUABLE THING – Linkin Park asked a federal judge to end a lawsuit that accuses the band of refusing to pay royalties to an ex-bassist who briefly played with the band in the late 1990s, arguing that the lawsuit is “rife with defects.” Chief among them? That such allegations have been repudiated for “over two decades” and the statute of limitations on it has thus “long since passed.”
