1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:01,199
Speaker 2: I did see something.

2
00:00:01,240 --> 00:00:03,640
Speaker 1: So, you know, we talk a lot on the show

3
00:00:03,799 --> 00:00:08,400
about music industry discussions, music industry topics, I should say

4
00:00:08,400 --> 00:00:11,080
that become discussions on the program, and.

5
00:00:12,839 --> 00:00:15,080
Speaker 2: Very often these controversies that are going on.

6
00:00:15,160 --> 00:00:17,960
Speaker 1: For example, last week, Jenny and I talked about the

7
00:00:18,199 --> 00:00:21,800
controversy of Bruno Mars, not Bruno Mars himself, but one

8
00:00:21,839 --> 00:00:25,800
of the one of the companies that owns a steak

9
00:00:25,839 --> 00:00:27,719
and the song When I Was Your Man by Bruno

10
00:00:27,800 --> 00:00:31,760
Mars suing Miley Cyrus and I think everyone Miley Cyrus

11
00:00:31,839 --> 00:00:34,880
has ever associated with over the song Flowers claiming copyright

12
00:00:34,920 --> 00:00:36,799
infringement and all of that. We did put the segment

13
00:00:36,880 --> 00:00:40,159
up on YouTube if you missed it. Kind of a

14
00:00:40,840 --> 00:00:42,439
very much, I would say, I shouldn't say kind of

15
00:00:42,479 --> 00:00:44,520
very much a frivolous lawsuit.

16
00:00:44,119 --> 00:00:48,200
Speaker 2: In my opinion. But so we talk about these various controversies,

17
00:00:48,280 --> 00:00:50,079
legal issues going on in the music industry.

18
00:00:50,119 --> 00:00:52,159
Speaker 1: We talk about AI a lot, all this kind of stuff,

19
00:00:52,399 --> 00:00:55,240
and of course, you know, Jenny and I both we

20
00:00:55,320 --> 00:00:59,799
love a good hip hop beef. So after the well

21
00:01:00,240 --> 00:01:04,040
before Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl performance, we talked about on

22
00:01:04,079 --> 00:01:07,200
the show, we talked about the beef between Kendrick and Drake,

23
00:01:07,680 --> 00:01:10,200
which has gone back over a decade now at this point,

24
00:01:11,239 --> 00:01:12,280
or about a decade.

25
00:01:12,640 --> 00:01:14,959
Speaker 2: But so we did a.

26
00:01:14,879 --> 00:01:17,319
Speaker 1: Long segment about that, which again is on YouTube if

27
00:01:17,319 --> 00:01:22,959
you want to check it out, and talking about we

28
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:26,480
felt from our perspective that Kendrick had kind of put

29
00:01:26,519 --> 00:01:29,719
the final nail in that coffin winning that, you know,

30
00:01:29,760 --> 00:01:33,120
because what has a distrack ever been performed at the

31
00:01:33,159 --> 00:01:35,400
Super Bowl? Now, maybe there is an example of that

32
00:01:35,400 --> 00:01:37,079
that I'm just not aware of, but that seemed like

33
00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:39,920
a pretty big, you know, pretty big deal. That seemed like,

34
00:01:39,959 --> 00:01:42,120
you know, how does Drake top that?

35
00:01:43,519 --> 00:01:45,000
Speaker 2: I don't. I don't think that he does.

36
00:01:45,239 --> 00:01:48,439
Speaker 1: But there's also a legal aspect or I guess I

37
00:01:48,439 --> 00:01:50,599
should say a civil aspect, right because it's not a

38
00:01:50,879 --> 00:01:54,200
it's not a criminal, but it is civil, this lawsuit

39
00:01:54,719 --> 00:01:57,000
that Jake has fouled, and that aspect of it we

40
00:01:57,079 --> 00:02:01,480
touched on during our conversation post super Bowl. Jenny and

41
00:02:01,519 --> 00:02:03,359
I did talk about that a little bit, but we

42
00:02:03,359 --> 00:02:05,959
didn't get into it too deep, that aspect of it.

43
00:02:06,200 --> 00:02:09,520
But if you don't know, Drake has filed a lawsuit

44
00:02:09,599 --> 00:02:13,039
against Kendrick Lamar, actually not against well, we should be

45
00:02:13,120 --> 00:02:17,800
precise when speaking about this, not Kendrick Lamar directly, but

46
00:02:18,120 --> 00:02:22,159
against Universal Music Group, who is no strangers to being sued.

47
00:02:22,199 --> 00:02:25,319
And we've talked about that on the show too months ago,

48
00:02:25,360 --> 00:02:29,360
we talked about the olymp biscuit lawsuit against UMG. Drake

49
00:02:29,439 --> 00:02:34,319
is suing UMG because not only is Drake on UMG,

50
00:02:34,479 --> 00:02:39,719
but Kendrick Lamar is on UMG, and according to Drake,

51
00:02:41,919 --> 00:02:44,319
UMG kind of put their their thumb on the scale

52
00:02:44,479 --> 00:02:48,360
in favor of Kendrick Lamar to try to devalue Drake

53
00:02:48,719 --> 00:02:52,400
because there is a contract negotiation coming up. Drake's contract

54
00:02:52,439 --> 00:02:56,280
with UMG is almost up, and Drake seems to feel

55
00:02:57,599 --> 00:03:01,960
that UMG, or at least his law seem to think

56
00:03:02,000 --> 00:03:04,840
that they can successfully sue for this. Who knows what

57
00:03:04,919 --> 00:03:08,639
anyone really thinks or believes, right, but you know, when

58
00:03:08,680 --> 00:03:11,240
there's money to be gone after.

59
00:03:12,479 --> 00:03:13,319
Speaker 2: This is what happens.

60
00:03:13,520 --> 00:03:15,759
Speaker 1: So you know, who knows what Drake really thinks, right,

61
00:03:15,800 --> 00:03:18,479
but or what any of them really believe. But they

62
00:03:18,560 --> 00:03:20,560
think that they have a They think they have a

63
00:03:20,560 --> 00:03:26,439
good case to say that UMG conspired effectively with Kendrick

64
00:03:26,520 --> 00:03:30,680
Lamar to push this song. Not like us as a

65
00:03:30,719 --> 00:03:36,319
way of devaluing Drake somewhat. Now, why would if you're

66
00:03:36,319 --> 00:03:40,400
thinking about it logically, why would UMG? What incentive? They're

67
00:03:40,400 --> 00:03:44,759
both on UMG? So what possible incentive would a record

68
00:03:44,840 --> 00:03:50,759
label like UMG have for devaluing their most successful artist

69
00:03:51,400 --> 00:03:54,639
Drake is I didn't even realize this until recently. Drake

70
00:03:54,759 --> 00:03:58,039
is the most streamed artist on Spotify, not the most

71
00:03:58,039 --> 00:03:59,879
streamed artist in hip hop, by the way, the most

72
00:04:00,280 --> 00:04:04,719
artists period. I believe that still holds on Spotify? I

73
00:04:04,759 --> 00:04:09,159
think or is he number two? Is Taylor Swift? Actually, first,

74
00:04:09,639 --> 00:04:11,400
we're so used to talking about I see now I'm

75
00:04:11,400 --> 00:04:14,400
second guessing myself because we're so used to talking about

76
00:04:14,759 --> 00:04:21,360
Taylor Swift being number one and everything. But I believe

77
00:04:21,439 --> 00:04:26,519
Drake is number one, and why would so? Why would

78
00:04:26,519 --> 00:04:29,879
a record label with such a successful artists want to

79
00:04:29,879 --> 00:04:33,279
devalue them? And the explanation which UMG denies and I'm,

80
00:04:33,439 --> 00:04:35,360
by the way, I find this claim dubious as well,

81
00:04:35,399 --> 00:04:39,759
So I'm skeptical about this. But the explanation from Drake's

82
00:04:39,839 --> 00:04:43,199
lawyers and why they are accusing you MG of this

83
00:04:43,519 --> 00:04:48,000
is that they feel that because Drake's contract is almost up,

84
00:04:48,360 --> 00:04:52,959
if you devalue him a little bit, you weaken Drake's

85
00:04:53,000 --> 00:04:56,079
negotiating position because they're gonna have to negotiate a new contract,

86
00:04:56,240 --> 00:04:58,480
or Drake goes elsewhere, he goes to another label, or

87
00:04:58,560 --> 00:05:02,600
Drake just doesn't have a label because he's already super famous.

88
00:05:02,639 --> 00:05:04,240
Why do you need a label? And we live in

89
00:05:04,279 --> 00:05:07,839
an era where, you know, because of the Internet, you

90
00:05:07,879 --> 00:05:10,560
don't need a label. It helps if you're already famous,

91
00:05:11,040 --> 00:05:14,439
You've got a giant head start, right, but you don't

92
00:05:14,480 --> 00:05:18,079
necessarily even need a label. But if that label's going

93
00:05:18,079 --> 00:05:20,319
to advance you millions and millions of dollars on everything

94
00:05:20,360 --> 00:05:22,240
that you do, you know it can be helpful too.

95
00:05:22,319 --> 00:05:28,439
So that's another discussion. But so legal representation for Drake

96
00:05:28,519 --> 00:05:31,759
is claiming that UMG intentionally has devalued him conspiring with

97
00:05:31,879 --> 00:05:35,839
Kendrick Lamar on that song. Not like us to devalue

98
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:40,600
Drake ahead of their their contract negotiations to weaken Drake's

99
00:05:40,600 --> 00:05:45,079
negotiating position. Again, I'm skeptical. That seems like an awfully

100
00:05:45,079 --> 00:05:49,600
big gamble. Plus, you know, these conspiracies don't, get me wrong.

101
00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:53,199
Conspiracies happen, of course they do, But I don't know.

102
00:05:54,519 --> 00:05:55,000
Speaker 2: I don't know.

103
00:05:55,240 --> 00:06:01,639
Speaker 1: Awkham's razor would suggest that, Yeah, obviously UMG wanted Kendrick

104
00:06:01,639 --> 00:06:03,279
to have a big hit with not like us because

105
00:06:03,279 --> 00:06:07,160
it's on UMG. Kendrick is also on UMG, so they want,

106
00:06:07,240 --> 00:06:09,240
you know, you always want to have a hit single,

107
00:06:09,319 --> 00:06:13,240
right and not like us as wildly successful. Heck so

108
00:06:13,279 --> 00:06:16,240
successful it got performed at the super Bowl. Anyway, Here's

109
00:06:16,360 --> 00:06:18,959
here's what's There are updates with this.

110
00:06:19,439 --> 00:06:20,240
Speaker 2: There are updates.

111
00:06:23,439 --> 00:06:27,639
Speaker 1: This is from This is from Music Business Worldwide dot com,

112
00:06:27,680 --> 00:06:29,720
a very very handy website for this kind of thing.

113
00:06:30,680 --> 00:06:33,879
Court says discovery process can move forward and Drake's defamation

114
00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:38,079
lawsuit against UMG over not like us. It says here

115
00:06:38,199 --> 00:06:41,600
at a pre trial conference this morning in New York.

116
00:06:42,639 --> 00:06:46,120
And when we say this morning, we actually meet April second,

117
00:06:46,240 --> 00:06:50,879
so a few days ago, earlier this week. But in

118
00:06:52,360 --> 00:06:57,160
that conference, Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that the discovery process

119
00:06:57,199 --> 00:06:59,759
in Drake's defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar is not like us,

120
00:07:00,040 --> 00:07:05,120
and begin UMG asked the US federal Court judge for

121
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:07,839
a stay of discovery in the lawsuit. On March eighteen,

122
00:07:07,879 --> 00:07:10,920
a day after the company filed a motion to dismiss

123
00:07:10,959 --> 00:07:14,519
the case. As reported last week, Drake's legal team pushed

124
00:07:14,560 --> 00:07:18,360
back against the request to pause the evidence gathering process.

125
00:07:18,720 --> 00:07:21,560
Following the decision made at this moment at this morning's

126
00:07:21,600 --> 00:07:23,759
pre trial conference. Again this was earlier in the week.

127
00:07:24,160 --> 00:07:26,680
The discovery process for both parties can now move forward.

128
00:07:27,759 --> 00:07:32,240
UMG's motion to dismiss is still pending, with a hearing

129
00:07:32,319 --> 00:07:36,040
date set for June thirtieth. In a letter to Judge

130
00:07:36,240 --> 00:07:40,639
Jeannette A. Vargas filed last Wednesday, March twentieth and obtained

131
00:07:41,439 --> 00:07:45,279
by Music Business Worldwide, Drake's attorney Michael J. Gottlieb argued

132
00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:48,160
that UMG's request to freeze discovery.

133
00:07:47,680 --> 00:07:49,120
Speaker 2: Should be denied. By the way.

134
00:07:49,199 --> 00:07:52,959
Speaker 1: So, I'm not a legal expert, I have no legal

135
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:55,800
background nothing, So I just I'm speaking as a layman.

136
00:07:55,879 --> 00:08:02,079
But if you don't know, discovery is when you get

137
00:08:02,120 --> 00:08:08,360
to discover literally the evidence that is involved in the case.

138
00:08:08,519 --> 00:08:12,920
So if you are Drake's attorneys, you're looking for in

139
00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:18,319
terms of discovery, you want access to any of the documents,

140
00:08:19,120 --> 00:08:22,879
anything that your opponents in this case, of course, the

141
00:08:22,959 --> 00:08:26,879
legal representation for Kendrick Lamar or actually, I'm sorry again,

142
00:08:26,959 --> 00:08:30,680
we should be precise with UMG, the legal representation of UMG,

143
00:08:30,759 --> 00:08:35,360
because they're not suing Kendrick Lamar directly unless I've misunderstood something,

144
00:08:35,399 --> 00:08:40,159
which is always possible, but anything, because here's what they're

145
00:08:40,200 --> 00:08:44,399
looking for it. They want something, whether it's emails, whether

146
00:08:44,440 --> 00:08:46,759
it's something written down somewhere, or whatever.

147
00:08:46,440 --> 00:08:46,840
Speaker 2: It may be.

148
00:08:47,679 --> 00:08:53,159
Speaker 1: They want something. Drake's attorneys want something that shows evidence

149
00:08:53,600 --> 00:08:58,000
that there was a conspiracy to actually devalue Drake and

150
00:08:58,039 --> 00:09:02,240
thus weaken his negotiating position for the next contract. They

151
00:09:02,279 --> 00:09:08,559
want something that suggests that. Again I'm very skeptical about

152
00:09:08,600 --> 00:09:13,039
this whole theory. I find it to be a dubious

153
00:09:13,039 --> 00:09:18,279
claim at best, but it's possible. So that's what they're

154
00:09:18,320 --> 00:09:22,240
looking for. So through discovery they can get access to

155
00:09:22,480 --> 00:09:25,120
things that are not going to be given, not going

156
00:09:25,159 --> 00:09:28,080
to be offered voluntarily, right, But they can get access

157
00:09:28,080 --> 00:09:31,039
to all of that evidence because again and again I

158
00:09:31,120 --> 00:09:34,240
might get some of the terminology wrong. I'm not a

159
00:09:34,519 --> 00:09:37,679
legal expert. I have no legal background, but from what

160
00:09:37,799 --> 00:09:40,559
I know, unfortunately, I've never been sued and I've never

161
00:09:40,559 --> 00:09:43,600
had to sue anybody, and I've gotten this far in

162
00:09:43,639 --> 00:09:47,639
life with avoiding all of that. But from what I understand,

163
00:09:49,320 --> 00:09:53,480
both parties have a right in a legal dispute, whether

164
00:09:53,480 --> 00:09:56,559
be it civil or criminal, both parties have a right,

165
00:09:56,559 --> 00:09:59,080
in this case civil to see all of the evidence

166
00:09:59,159 --> 00:10:02,279
that the other party has that they're going to use

167
00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:06,000
in court in the case. So that's what discovery is.

168
00:10:06,039 --> 00:10:10,320
You're discovering what your opposition has because you have a

169
00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:12,799
right to be able to see that and have access

170
00:10:12,799 --> 00:10:16,440
to it as well. Very often the legal wrangling ends

171
00:10:16,519 --> 00:10:20,440
up being over what documents do you have a right

172
00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:23,360
to see? In terms of discovery, what do you have

173
00:10:23,440 --> 00:10:26,519
a right to access to So if you're suing UMG,

174
00:10:26,639 --> 00:10:28,879
for example, and I know because another news story I

175
00:10:28,879 --> 00:10:30,519
saw and it might be mentioned in this article, I

176
00:10:30,559 --> 00:10:30,840
don't know.

177
00:10:30,879 --> 00:10:35,159
Speaker 2: We'll see, but I know that one of the issues

178
00:10:35,200 --> 00:10:35,879
that had.

179
00:10:35,759 --> 00:10:41,440
Speaker 1: Arisen was do Drake's legal team do they have a

180
00:10:41,559 --> 00:10:46,080
right to access Kendrick Lamar's they're suing you MG, they're

181
00:10:46,120 --> 00:10:48,000
not suing Kendrick directly, but do they have a right

182
00:10:48,039 --> 00:10:54,200
to access Kendrick Lamar's documents to see if he has

183
00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:57,879
any correspondence talking about a conspiracy to devalue Drake anything

184
00:10:57,960 --> 00:11:01,120
like that right. So, and that was a question at

185
00:11:01,120 --> 00:11:04,240
one point that the judge had to rule on. You know,

186
00:11:04,240 --> 00:11:06,480
it's one thing for them, they're suing UMG. It's one

187
00:11:06,480 --> 00:11:09,559
thing for them to have access to any UMG documents

188
00:11:09,600 --> 00:11:11,600
that they want. Do they also should they have a

189
00:11:11,720 --> 00:11:15,519
right to have access to Kendrick Lamar's documents or anyone

190
00:11:15,519 --> 00:11:17,799
else associated, anyone else who might be mixed up in

191
00:11:17,840 --> 00:11:22,080
this effectively, if I understand that correctly, let me back

192
00:11:22,159 --> 00:11:22,600
up a little bit.

193
00:11:22,679 --> 00:11:22,759
Speaker 2: So.

194
00:11:22,799 --> 00:11:26,559
Speaker 1: In a letter to Judge Vargas filed on Wednesday, March twentieth,

195
00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:31,399
Drake's attorney argued that UMG's request to freeze discovery should

196
00:11:31,440 --> 00:11:36,480
be denied. Quote UMG has failed to meet its burden unquote,

197
00:11:36,480 --> 00:11:40,279
Gottlieb claims in the four page letter, arguing that UMG's

198
00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:45,080
motion to stay discovery fails on all three factors courts

199
00:11:45,159 --> 00:11:49,200
consider when investigating such requests. Gottlieb's letter reference to the

200
00:11:49,240 --> 00:11:52,399
court's own statement that quote, it is not the practice

201
00:11:52,440 --> 00:11:56,279
of the court to routinely stay discovery pending the outcome

202
00:11:56,399 --> 00:12:00,240
of emotion to dismiss unquote, highlighting that such pauses are

203
00:12:00,279 --> 00:12:04,039
the exception rather than the rule. The fileing arrived just

204
00:12:04,120 --> 00:12:06,039
one day after UMG asked the court for a stay

205
00:12:06,039 --> 00:12:11,519
of discovery with UMG attorney rollin a Ransom, which is

206
00:12:11,559 --> 00:12:14,000
such a great name. By the way, he must represent

207
00:12:14,080 --> 00:12:16,120
a lot of people in the music industry because that

208
00:12:16,200 --> 00:12:20,279
names come up on the show before rollin a Ransom,

209
00:12:20,759 --> 00:12:24,080
arguing that I mean that sounds like the name of

210
00:12:24,120 --> 00:12:25,600
a character in a film, it or a book. It

211
00:12:25,600 --> 00:12:28,440
doesn't sound like a real person, arguing that quote. Courts

212
00:12:28,519 --> 00:12:33,559
in this district have emphasized that defamation defendants must be

213
00:12:33,600 --> 00:12:38,759
protected from unnecessary discovery to safeguard First Amendment protections unquote.

214
00:12:39,440 --> 00:12:42,919
Drake's lawsuit against UMG, filed in January, alleges that the

215
00:12:42,919 --> 00:12:47,639
company promoted a false and malicious narrative about Drake via

216
00:12:47,679 --> 00:12:51,559
the context of the lyrics, single, artwork and music video

217
00:12:51,639 --> 00:12:54,360
for Not Like Us. Today's decision over discovery is the

218
00:12:54,440 --> 00:12:56,799
latest development in the legal fallout from one of twenty

219
00:12:56,840 --> 00:12:59,879
twenty four's biggest hits and a high profile rap few.

220
00:13:00,440 --> 00:13:02,519
Not Like Us, was released in May twenty twenty four

221
00:13:02,519 --> 00:13:05,559
as part of a series of distracts exchanged between Drakes

222
00:13:05,600 --> 00:13:09,320
and Lamar. The development follows Drake's withdrawal of his previous

223
00:13:09,399 --> 00:13:14,720
legal petition against UMG and Spotify in January, which had

224
00:13:14,720 --> 00:13:18,960
discussed the companies which had accused the companies of artificially

225
00:13:18,960 --> 00:13:27,399
inflating streams for Lamar's track. By the way, what's interesting

226
00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:29,759
about that and that we don't have time to get

227
00:13:29,799 --> 00:13:32,000
into that aspect of all of this in detail, but

228
00:13:32,080 --> 00:13:35,200
that would be a really interesting conversation. Probably Jenny and

229
00:13:35,200 --> 00:13:37,320
I will tackle that in the future at some point,

230
00:13:38,159 --> 00:13:40,000
because I know there are a lot of strong feelings

231
00:13:40,039 --> 00:13:40,519
about it.

232
00:13:42,039 --> 00:13:45,440
Speaker 2: In terms of what is and is not.

233
00:13:45,440 --> 00:13:49,919
Speaker 1: Appropriate or legal or ethical. Legally, I don't think there's

234
00:13:49,919 --> 00:13:55,480
any issue, but ethically when companies artificially inflate the numbers,

235
00:13:56,159 --> 00:13:58,519
and that's something that happens across the Internet, by the way,

236
00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:02,720
not just in streaming. You know, if say Spotify, I'll

237
00:14:02,759 --> 00:14:05,720
just give you a hypothetical, say and and artists or

238
00:14:06,039 --> 00:14:13,120
or label is paying Spotify money to artificially inflate the

239
00:14:13,200 --> 00:14:17,559
numbers of a particular single from a particular artist so

240
00:14:17,559 --> 00:14:21,120
that when you look at that on Spotify, it looks

241
00:14:21,159 --> 00:14:24,639
like it's got a lot more listens than it actually does.

242
00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:30,399
Is that ethical? Is that okay? Or is that a

243
00:14:30,440 --> 00:14:33,039
form of payola? And again, we can have a whole

244
00:14:33,080 --> 00:14:39,279
that's a whole, separate conversation because I know a lot

245
00:14:39,279 --> 00:14:41,240
of people have feelings about that. But when when I

246
00:14:41,240 --> 00:14:44,120
say that happens across the Internet, that happens to other

247
00:14:44,159 --> 00:14:46,360
places too. It happens with podcasts, it happens with everything.

248
00:14:46,360 --> 00:14:54,519
For example, on on X formerly Twitter, sometimes people will

249
00:14:55,000 --> 00:14:57,399
put videos or live streams on X and then they'll

250
00:14:57,440 --> 00:15:00,159
be talking about, you know, look at how successful this was,

251
00:15:00,200 --> 00:15:01,919
and look at all the people who watched my video,

252
00:15:02,519 --> 00:15:06,799
when in reality, anybody who even scrolls past that video,

253
00:15:06,840 --> 00:15:09,759
even if they don't watch more than a second of it,

254
00:15:10,039 --> 00:15:12,600
you know, that counts as a quote unquote view of

255
00:15:12,679 --> 00:15:15,679
the video. So the numbers are artificially inflated that way,

256
00:15:18,240 --> 00:15:20,840
or Rumble does that. Rumble is notorious for doing that.

257
00:15:20,879 --> 00:15:24,639
They inflate their numbers to make their context content creators

258
00:15:24,639 --> 00:15:28,279
happy and make them look more successful and so forth.

259
00:15:28,320 --> 00:15:31,360
But there is more to this article, but we are

260
00:15:31,879 --> 00:15:35,320
we are running short in this hour. But Music Businessworldwide

261
00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:41,799
dot com is a great website. So if you are

262
00:15:41,879 --> 00:15:45,919
interested in matters of the music industry, whether they be

263
00:15:46,279 --> 00:15:51,120
controversies and legal problems that seem to come up quite

264
00:15:51,120 --> 00:15:54,320
a bit, or if you're just curious about keeping up

265
00:15:54,320 --> 00:15:55,480
on what's going on in the industry.

266
00:15:55,519 --> 00:15:56,600
Speaker 2: That's a great website to go to.