As the Digital Economy Bill heads to the House Of Lords for its third reading today, the amendment to the controversial Clause 17, the just as controversial Amendment 120A, is likely to be amended. Which is fun.

Clause 17 was the provision within the copyright section of the DEB that would give future ministers the power to introduce new anti-piracy systems without going through the full parliamentary process. Amendment 120A removes that provision, but instead gives the High Court the right to shut down (and force ISPs to block access to) websites that prolifically infringe copyrights.

It is widely believed that record label trade body the BPI initially supported Clause 17 because they saw it as a way to get the proposals set out in Amendment 120A put into law after the Bill had been passed by parliament. With Clause 17 obviously likely to be cut for the Bill, the BPI threw the more specific Amendment 120A into the mix and the Lib Dems formally proposed it. The BPI want to ensure the new copyright rules introduced deal with more than just P2P file-sharing.

But Amendment 120A has caused just as much outrage from the anti-DEB brigade, who claim the High Court injunction system would be misused, and could be utilised by content owners against the likes of Google and YouTube. That seems really rather unlikely, but concern in the web community was enough to persuade the major web firms to join the internet service providers in formally opposing the amendment in a letter in the Financial Times last week.

Responding to that opposition, the Lib Dems are planning to amend the amendment. In particular, they plan to put increased liability for the legal costs of applying for a shut-down injunction on the content owners, so that said companies don't start applying for High Court orders on whim. The tweaked provision will also clarify how accused websites can appeal, and obligates content owners to alert website operators of their intent to apply for an injunction, and to provide a list of all infringed copyrights, before going to court.

According to a confidential BPI update on its lobbying activity intended for the trade body's members, which was leaked on the internet this weekend, it's not only web giants, ISPs and Stephen Fry who are opposed to Amendment 120A. Apparently MI5 are as well, though quite why isn't clear. Given the scale of the opposition, even some political types who generally support the copyright section of the DEB reckon the shut-down injunctions provision will have to be dropped in order to get the rest of the proposed legislation through parliament before the looming deadline of the General Election.

Speculation remains as to whether or not any of the Bill will make it onto the statute book before parliament is dissolved for the latest series of 'Politician Idol'. Assuming it gets through the Lords this week it will then progress to the House Of Commons. The aforementioned leaked BPI email is quite positive about the chances of the Bill slipping through the Commons on the nod, with the trade body reporting that opposition to the new copyright laws among MPs is isolated, and many Members accept that, given the looming deadline, the legislation will have to be voted on with relatively little debate.

So much so, the BPI email reports that meetings have already occurred between them, the Music Publishers Association and ISPs Sky and Virgin, on how the three-strikes system the DEB will make law might work on a practical basis. Consumer rights group Which? - who have said they believe a well run three-strikes system for combating file-sharing is better than the current system where file-sharers in theory face direct infringement litigation - are also said to be inputting on these discussions.

But, with opposition outside parliament still pretty damn vocal, and many of the groups opposing the DEB calling on their supporters to start bugging their election-sensitive MPs on this issue, some reckon there may be more shenanigans to be had in the House Of Commons on these proposals than some lobbyists currently expect. And while Sky and Virgin maybe willing to start considering how three-strikes will work already, as content owners themselves they've always been the more friendly ISPs on this issue. TalkTalk, for one, will continue to fight this until the final parliamentary vote is cast.

And, probably, beyond, because even if the DEB and three-strikes become law, TalkTalk are expected to hinder the new copyright system at every possible opportunity. Proving they still see this as a fight worth fighting, TalkTalk published research on Friday which claimed that 80% of 18-34 year olds who currently file-share said they would continue to do so even if three-strikes becomes law, and that they would circumvent the new net suspension system by using the various software systems out there will hide a user's online activity.

The ISP's Director Of Strategy, Regulation & Record Company Baiting Andrew Heaney told reporters: "Whatever measures are taken it will have little impact on the music industry's coffers but will leave in its wake innocent customers disconnected from the internet".

It's taken as a given that Warner Music would like to acquire EMI if it falls onto the market, either because current owners Terra Firma decide to cut their losses and instigate a quick sale, or because the equity firm defaults on its loan agreements with Citigroup and the bank seizes ownership of the music major.

It's also widely assumed that regulatory problems that might have stopped a Warner EMI merger five years ago - over concerns there being just three major record companies would be bad for competition - would prove less problematic now, given the declining dominance of the record industry in the wider music business, and the arrival of a combined Live Nation/Ticketmaster and the influence of the likes of Apple in the music sector.

But could Warner Music afford to buy EMI? Well, the rumour this weekend was that Warner are in talks with private equity house KKR about mounting a joint bid for the London-based major. If successful, Warner would absorb EMI's recordings catalogue, while KKR would take EMI Music Publishing.

The equity firm is known to be eager to expand its music publishing interests, and has already bought into BMG Rights Management. It's not clear if the EMI Publishing catalogue would be merged with BMG (such a deal has already been mooted), or whether KKR would keep the EMI publisher as a separate company.

Of course, it's EMI Music Publishing that most people would want to buy, it being rather successful, while EMI Music - the recorded music company - makes all the losses. Which might make you wonder why Warner would want that bit of EMI without the publishing assets. Though the major probably believes that economies of scale may overcome most of the losses, while certain key EMI Music assets - the Beatles catalogue in particular - and the actually-doing-quite-well EMI Music Services business, are probably worth having. Plus, despite what I just said about the competition authorities, a merger of market-leading EMI Publishing with the Warner Chappell publishing firm might just cause some regulatory concerns.

Whatever, according to reports Warner and KKR have been busy discussing a joint bid since the shock departure of EMI Music chief Elio Leoni-Sceti last week, an exit that left many - well, us at least - concluding that Terra Firma now want well and truly out of the music business.

The last time we reported on Guns N Roses - about those rumours Axl Rose had banned Slash t-shirts from a gig in Canada - we pissed off a lot of Axl fans on one of the band's more active message boards, and much CMU dissing took place until we corrected an error we had made regarding which specific message-boarders Rose had been ranting about.

Still, it seems we got off lightly, and it's lucky the Guns N Roses fans in question weren't Brazilian. A bunch of rich concertgoers in Sao Paulo went on the rampage on Friday after it was announced a planned Guns N Roses gig would not go ahead. The band were due to play at an invite-only show at a top club in the city, at a night hosted by Brazilian supermodel Ana Beatriz Barros. But at 3am it was revealed the gig would not - for reasons of which I am not certain - go ahead.

According to the New York Post, the club goers got really rather pissed off on hearing this news, and decided to take it out on each other, leading to one almighty punch up. A source told the paper: "The audience got angry and started to mount the stage, and fight and destroy everything. It was wild. There were fights everywhere, on the dance floor, in the bathrooms, outside the club. Crazy. I guess the free drinks didn't help".

In related news, Slash has commented on the aforementioned Canadian t-shirt ban when the topic was brought up in an interview he was doing during Canadian Music Week this weekend. He said he was willing to believe the rumours were of the untrue variety. He told news agency QMI: "I give him [Axl] the benefit of the doubt. I hate to think someone would be that petty, so it might be more of a rumour".

The most convincing sounding explanation for the rumour we heard, which I think came from someone in the security firm working at the Canadian show, was that bouncers had been told to look out for a gang of fans who, it was thought, planned to cause trouble at the gig, possibly as part of rivalries between those GnR fans who think Axl is great, and those who blame the frontman for bringing to an end of the band's classic line-up. That heightened awareness among security for troublemakers got spun into the Slash t-shirt ban rumours. Slash admitted to QMI: "There is a little bit of infighting between fans now, too. There's like Guns fans who support the Axl thing and then there's Guns fans who support the Slash thing. And God knows where it originated".

On continued frosty relations between him and his former bandmate, Slash concluded: "We obviously haven't actually sat together and talked so there's definitely some bad blood there but at the same time it's been, you know, fifteen years and I don't like to perpetuate the negative stuff because I don't really have the kind of harsh feelings for him that the media exaggerates".

Of course, if those Guns N Roses fans were hoping to win some sort of award for their raucousness, well they picked the wrong week to riot, because the rock fan riot stakes had already been set quite high last week, again in South America. This time it was Metallica fans causing trouble.

This riot was between the rock fans and the authorities, rather than involving fans beating up each other. At least a hundred fans were arrested after violence erupted outside the venue in Bogata, Columbia where Metallica were playing last Wednesday.

Local media report that a large number of fans without tickets tried to force their way into the venue but - following similar violence outside a Metallica gig in Chile back in January - the local military had been shipped in, meaning the rioting fans were rather outnumbered by the 1500 officials patrolling the streets.

Water cannons and tear gas were unleashed as fans tried to force their way into the show, with a total of 160 fans being detained. Justifying their pretty heavy handed response local police official Ruben Castillo told Sky News: "Those people that did not get in wanted to get in by force. The presence of police and riot teams was necessary because these misfits - there's no other name for them - damaged some windows in the surrounding area".

Despite the hoo haa outside, the gig inside went ahead as planned.

Those who oppose amendment 120a to the Digital Economy Bill, which was put forward by the Liberal Democrats, are making much today of the fact that the last minute provision seems to have been written by record label trade body the BPI.

This is the amendment that replaced the controversial Clause 17 of the Bill, and which has managed to prove even more controversial. Clause 17 gave future ministers the power to introduce new copyright rules on whim (well, sort of). Amendment 120a gives the High Court powers (or, rather, clarifies and maybe extends existing powers) to shut down copyright-infringing websites.

It was always assumed that the BPI supported the all-encompassing Clause 17 because they saw it as a way of getting an Amendment 120a type provision into law at some point in the near future. The record label trade body don't want new copyright rules to only deal with P2P file-sharing, given the growth of other kinds of online copyright infringement.

As previously reported, a consortium of ISPs and web companies (and Stephen Fry) put their name to a letter opposing the amendment earlier this week. They say the amendment is dangerous, and has been rushed in without proper debate.

It emerged yesterday that although the amendment was put forward in the House Of Lords by Lib Dem Tim Clement-Jones, that his wording is pretty much identical to a clause proposed by the BPI in a letter circulated to Lordy types earlier this year. This revelation provides ammunition for those who say the whole copyright section of the Digital Economy Bill panders far too much to the content lobby.

But the BPI said it wasn't embarrassed by the revelation it had basically written a clause of the Digital Economy Bill. To be fair, any legislation designed to placate competing lobbying groups may take certain expressions or phrases from the work of said lobbyists as political types look for compromise. And, in lobbying circles, getting a bit of your work directly pasted into a Bill is a gold star, have-an-extra-Hob-Nob-with-your-coffee achievement.

The Guardian quote the BPI thus: "This was a suggestion that we made to the government in 2009, with this wording. This version of the proposal was sent to the government and also to the opposition parties. The government decided it wanted to go a different way. The opposition parties, while not fully agreeing with it, saw it as a good framework for what they wanted to put down".

One of the BPI's rivals in the lobbying swamp on this one, the Open Rights Group's Jim Killock, admitted that most lobbyists would try to persuade politicians to take their wording, and that the record label trade body weren't to blame for having succeeded in this regard. However, he criticised the Lib Dems and Lords at large for being seemingly so ready to take the BPI's words on such a contentious topic.

He told The Guardian: "The BPI has got every right to do this. The question is why the politicians have said in such a complicated arena that they will take the BPI's ideas wholesale without consulting anybody else. It's the politicians who have been irresponsible here. It shows that they're taking the BPI far too seriously".

So, speculation is rife following yesterday's shock departure of the one non-record industry man parachuted into EMI by Terra Firma who the artist management community actually liked.

Did he jump or was he pushed? What does this mean for the business plan he was writing that was going to convince Terra Firma investors to stump up the £100 million needed to stop EMI defaulting on its four billion dollar loan with Citigroup? Did Peter Williams, the corporate fire-fighter brought in last month to deal with the bank loan problem, tell him to go? Why is Charles Allen moving into an executive role now, after a year as EMI's non-executive chairman? Is this the beginning of the end for Britain's only major record company?

According to the Telegraph, insiders say it was Elio Leoni-Sceti's decision to leave the major, despite recently telling Management Today he was "very dedicated" to the company, but that his resignation was "gratefully accepted" by the music firm's private equity owners.

Leoni-Sceti's an intelligent man who has won friends in the music industry since being brought into EMI in mid-2008, despite him overseeing some radical downsizing at the major. You can't help think his decision to suddenly quit means that he is pretty pessimistic about the prospects of Terra Firma's money men helping EMI meet its Citigroup loan commitments, and that Leoni-Sceti doesn't fancy working for the bankers when they seize control of the major, or being the man who has to coordinate a fire-sale of the 79 year old music company. Or he sees that an EMI Warner merger is now inevitable, and that the EMI Music CEO job won't exist by Christmas.

On the up side for EMI, some in the finance press have given a generally positive spin to the news that former ITV boss Charles Allen will take on an executive role at EMI, pointing out that Charlie is popular with some key players in the investment community. Presumably these are different 'key players in the investment community' to the shareholders who pushed Allen out of the top job at ITV in 2006 after he totally failed to turn round the flagging broadcaster's fortunes.

And presumably they are investors too dumb to realise that what EMI needs at the top just now is a man on good terms with the artist management community, able to facilitate the sorts of artist deals that will either ensure big bucks in two years time, or look good enough on paper to restore confidence in both the wider music industry and the City. And preferably someone who understands how you can make money out of digital. Of course, Allen has some record in the digital arena; he spent £120 million of ITV's money buying Friends Reunited exactly three years after every single person on the planet had stopped using it.

Still, to be fair to Allen, he played a key role in the creation of one ITV company by engineering the merger of his former employer Granada with it's main rival Carlton. Perhaps Terra Firma are no longer interested in transforming or rescuing EMI. If the aim now is to speed through an EMI Warner merger as soon as possible, reducing Terra Firma's financial hit as best you can, then Charlie is probably your man. Today may well be the beginning of the end for a standalone EMI.

Talking of companies on the skids, the new bosses at MySpace have given a briefing in the US about upcoming changes to their platform which further sees the one time social networking service move more into the entertainment content provision and sharing space. MySpace also recently lost their CEO somewhat suddenly, of course, with Owen Van Natta being pushed out last month. As previously reported, former Chief Product Officer Jason Hirschhorn and Chief Operating Officer Mike Jones are now running the shop.

According to Billboard, Jones admitted at the briefing at MySpace's Beverly Hills HQ that morale at the flagging web firm had been hit by the continued rise of rivals like Facebook, and the high number of executive departures in the last twelve months. He added that some employees had "lost the will to keep fighting", and that those people had been invited to depart the company because "we are at the point now where we need believers". Though one would assume that anyone at MySpace who has ever actually tried to use the site would find it pretty hard to be optimistic, it still being one of the shittest sites on the web and all.

Jones is hoping that some upcoming refinements to the MySpace platform will make it slightly less shit. I'm not convinced they will. But they should further move the web service into the entertainment arena. Changes include the facility to compile music playlists based on what songs your friends are listening to, another sign that management realise that really it's MySpace Music that could still potentially succeed, rather than the social networking element of what the company offers.

That said, MySpace Music is pretty shit too. With a crucial ad sales partnership with Google up for renewal later this month, those MySpace staffers feeling somewhat pessimistic are probably just being realistic. And unlike EMI, if and when Rupert Murdoch and his backers decide to cut their losses, there'll be little in the MySpace business anyone would want to acquire.

A rather influential sounding group of web companies, including all the pesky internet service providers, Google, eBay, Facebook and Yahoo!, put their name to a letter in the Financial Times yesterday slamming the previously reported amendment to the Digital Economy Bill giving the High Court more powers to shut down websites that primarily exist to infringe other people's copyrights.

As previously reported, the amendment replaced the controversial Clause 17 of the DEB, which would give future ministers the power to introduce new copyright rules on whim without going through the full parliamentary process. Although designed to placate those who opposed that Clause, the amendment put in its place is proving just as controversial.

The content lobby, and in particular the BPI, wanted the extra clause added to the Bill so that the copyright provisions in it didn't just focus on tackling file-sharing, and gave some extra powers to combat other forms of online infringement. In theory the amendment simply formalises existing legal powers to stop infringers, but those who oppose it fear it will be open to misuse.

The letter, which was also signed by that all round expert on everything Stephen Fry, says that the new provision is too contentious to be slipped into the new copyright proposals at the last minute without proper debate. The letter says: "This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge. The amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefits it could bring".

It continues: "We are particularly concerned that a measure of this kind as a general-purpose policy could have an adverse impact on the reputation of the UK as a place to do online business and conflict with the broader objectives of Digital Britain".

Needless to say, the BPI do not concur. They issued a statement responding to the letter yesterday morning, saying: "The amendment adopted by the House Of Lords provides a clear and sensible mechanism to deal with illegal websites. Contrary to the claims in the letter, service providers would in every case be able to ensure that the decision as to whether a site should be blocked is made by the High Court. The court would be required to consider the extent of legal content on a website, any impact on human rights, and whether the website removes infringing content when requested. So the suggestion that the clause would lead to widespread disruption to the internet or threaten freedom of speech is pure scaremongering".

It continues: "The signatories to the letter recognise that dealing with illegal websites is a legitimate concern, and have argued in the past that action against illegal downloading should focus on commercial operators. Removing unfair competition from clearly illegal websites will encourage investment in legal online services and improve the legal internet experience for everyone".

In related news, the collecting society community has welcomed an amendment to Clause 42 of the Bill, which dealt with the role of collecting society type organisations in the digital era. Some feared the original wording of the clause - which would give a collecting society the right to represent songs without the explicit agreement of said songs' owners (they'd have to opt out) - could be open to abuse, so that web firms would set up their own collecting societies and license themselves everyone's music until copyright owners had cottoned on and opted out, or something similar.

The amendment says a collecting society can only come into being if it has the backing of the majority of the content owners it claims to represent, so only a community of copyright owners could initiate the launch of a new licensing body. All lovely.

EMI CEO Elio Leoni-Sceti will leave the major label at the end of this month, it has been announced this morning. Charles Allen has also been appointed as executive chairman, and will take on many of the responsibilities formerly held by Leoni-Sceti, though not directly replacing him. Allen has been in the non-executive chairman role since January last year.

In a statement, Allen said: "Over the past two and a half years [since it was acquired by investment firm Terra Firma], EMI Music has become a stronger and growing company, with a talented senior team, significant creative success and a more rigorous approach to marketing and operations. This has resulted in increased sales, improved market share and industry-leading EBITDA [Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization] margins".

He continued: "Elio has done a great job. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him; he is a very talented executive and we all wish him well in the future. Our goals for EMI Music remain the same. I will support and guide the group's strong team, keep EMI's focus on creativity and superb A&R, and deliver a digital platform. This is a great business - our task is to ensure it has a great future".

Leoni-Sceti added: "EMI is a wonderful business with a great team and new creative and operational momentum. My job here is now done and it is time for me to move on. It has been a pleasure to work with Charles and so many other talented and committed people. I look forward to seeing the company go on to further success in the future".

Earlier this month, Leoni-Sceti said that he was confident that a new business plan he had been asked to draw up by Terra Firma head Guy Hands in February could lead EMI out of its financial problems. He told Management Today magazine: "I'm confident the business plan we present will be a good plan. I can only do my job. I'm staying focused on delivering a vision for this business - I'm very dedicated to EMI".

However, while he was finalising the details of that business plan last month, the Financial Times reported that Terra Firma had hired former Selfridges chief Peter Williams, who apparently helped sports chain JJB Sports avoid going bankrupt last year, to assist in bid to stop US bank Citigroup from taking ownership of the music firm in lieu of the $189 million it is owed in loan repayments by May.

The FT reckoned that, as well as dealing with Citigroup on the equity firm's behalf, Williams would also scrutinise Leoni-Sceti's new business plan. It's not clear if it is this review of the plan that is the reason for the chief exec's sudden departure from the company.

All artists need a record company says, erm, the global trade body for record companies. Coming soon, a report from CMU that says all music business people need the CMU Daily.

Yes, the International Federation Of The Phonographic Industry - or the Worldwide Record Labels Club to give them a name more than seventeen people will understand - yesterday published a report showing just how important record companies remain in this here digital age. The aim of the document, of course, was to hit back at all those people in the wider music community who like to say things like "you know, record companies are pretty redundant these days".

To be fair to the IFPI, the point of their report was that when it comes to new bands you need to spend money to make money and, if you want mainstream success, you have to spend rather a lot of money. And, the trade body argues, when it comes to spending rather large sums of money on new talent, it's still really the record companies who are writing the cheques. And in many ways that is true, for now at least.

The report says that breaking a new band costs at least a million dollars, with a slightly simplified budget claiming $200,000 is paid out in an advance, $200,000 is spent on recording, $200,000 is needed for three promotional videos, $100,000 goes on tour support and $300,000 is pumped into marketing and promotion.

Some might say it looks a bit like the IFPI consulted a beginners guide to the record industry published in 1998 to come up with that budget breakdown, but I take their point that it still costs more than most people would expect to break a new band, and that much of the upfront capital still often comes from a record company's wallet. So much so, the trade body reckons record labels worldwide invest up to $5 billion a year into launching artists and albums, which works out at about 30% of their overall sales revenue. 

The record label chiefs on hand at the IFPI briefing added that the million dollar budget was in many cases rather conservative, while adding that even when that investment paid off and a band was successfully launched, it didn't mean said talent were immediately profitable for the record company. Sony UK's Mike Smith said you are looking for a band to surpass 600,000 albums sales before they can really be treated as a profit centre for a label. Which is rather a lot.

It wasn't overly clear what the motive was for the trade body telling us all this now. Unusually for an IFPI event, it didn't conclude with a big rallying cry for a tougher crack down on piracy (though there was a brief mention that illegal file-sharing was having a direct impact on the amount of money available for investment), and it didn't seem to be especially aimed at artists and managers in a "give us a bigger share of your non-recording revenues you bastards" sort of way. 

But, as I said at the outset, it actually seemed like the record industry was mainly stating its reasons for existing in an era where people talk more and more about fan-funding, the DIY route, profitable band-brand alliances, alternative investment and how jolly well the live sector is doing just know.

As some of the label execs present correctly pointed out, it's hard to identify many or any bands who have managed to launch themselves as mainstream acts (certainly globally) without the help of a traditional record company. But those other launch routes are very much in their infancy, and I think it's too soon to say which will work for new and existing talent long term, or whether any can or will replace the record label in some cases.

I happen to think record companies aren't all doomed, and mainly for the reasons IFPI list in their new report, though I'm not sure a record company (major certainly) in 2020 will look much like what a record company looks like now; though just like those newer business models competing with the traditional label system, I think it's too soon to say how labels will work with artists, old and new, in the decades to come.

With wonderful timing, as the record companies got on stage to tell us all how important they still were in the wider music business, two artists announced they were cutting traditional labels out of their lives. True these are both established artists, so it doesn't really contradict IFPI's claim that is the labels who fund the breaking of new talent. And both will probably end up using a record company to handle some of their distribution, but still, it was interesting timing nonetheless.

First things first, OK Go, who have become newsworthy of late for their latest video venture, a more complex affair than their legendary treadmill promo, and perhaps more importantly for the issues that surrounded fans embedding the band's other videos onto their blogs and social network profiles.

As previously reported, OK Go's label EMI are not currently allowing most of their official content on YouTube to be embedded on third party websites, because when a YouTube video is embedded the key advertising spots aren't shown, so the record company cannot earn off the content. The band's Damian Kulash wrote a great blog post communicating his frustrations about this turn of events back in January, which we reported on here.

The news today is that some of those frustrations may go away, because it seems the band are about to part company with EMI's US Capitol label, and will take their latest album 'Of The Blue Color Of The Sky' with them. The long player will now be distributed and marketed by the band's own label Paracadute Recordings. The parting of company mid-way through an album marketing campaign might suggest some major falling out - perhaps caused by the video embed issue - though Kulash has always been very complimentary about his label, and both sides insist they are parting on good terms.

Hits Daily Double quote an EMI spokesperson as saying: "We've really enjoyed our relationship with OK Go. They've always pushed creative boundaries and have broken new ground, particularly with their videos. We wish them the greatest success for the future". While Kulash is quoted thus: "We'd like to thank the people at EMI Music who have worked so hard on our behalf".

Insiders say that EMI may have been willing to part company with OK Go because, despite the web hype around their new video, sales of the new album have been modest; another example of how substantial online interest in an artist doesn't necessarily equal revenues for related rights holders. Though OK Go are possibly just the sort of band who can really benefit from having control of their own destiny, and being free to experiment with new ways of making money with music, especially online.

And, indeed, the band have already been dabbling in the brand alliance space. The aforementioned new video, for the song 'This Too Shall Pass', was paid for by US insurance firm State Farm, who get some subtle logo moments in the video itself and a thank you at the end of the promo. The finance firm probably realised that the video was going to be much bigger news than the song and album it promotes, and given OK Go's reputation for being online innovators it was presumably an artist alliance they were happy to pay to secure. EMI were seemingly part of the State Farm deal, but I expect the band and their management are probably in a position to pursue similar opportunities alone.

Secondly, Charlotte Church has signed a 360 degree deal with Power Amp, the music investment firm whose most high profile venture to date was probably their Madness alliance.

According to the FT, the deal is worth £2 million, a chunk of which will finance a new album now set for Autumn release. In return for the investment Power Amp's investors will get 50% of the singer's recording, publishing, merchandising and live revenue for an undisclosed period of time. Copyrights, I'm pretty sure, will stay with the Church, which is good news for God. No, not that church, obviously. 

Power Amp chief Tom Bywater wouldn't be drawn on how much profit he hopes to make from the two million his investors will pump into the Charlotte Church venture, though he did tell the FT his wider business model aimed to double each investor's money every three years.

Church admitted the attraction of the Power Amp arrangement was that it provided a major label level budget, but ensured her more control over her output. Church: "[The deal] provides me with a financial commitment equivalent to that of a major record company but with a much greater degree of control and ownership over my career".

Of course, Power Amp are the first to admit that they look to work with record companies when it comes to distributing the recorded output of artists they invest in, and IFPI would be sure to point out putting money into Madness and Charlotte Church is not the same as labels investing that cool million into a totally new band. Still, whether or not you agree with the aforementioned IFPI report, OK Go and Charlotte Church both provide some useful extra case studies for the "ha, who needs record label" brigade. 

Lobbying groups on both sides of the three-strikes debate published research yesterday, as chatter on the Digital Economy Bill reached its final stages in the House Of Lords and preparations to take the slightly controversial proposed legislation to the House Of Commons began.

The copyright section of this Bill, of course, will introduce the three-strikes procedure for targeting prolific file-sharers, like the really evil ones, who probably also bully teddy bears and pull the legs of spiders. The new laws would allow a government agency - probably OfCom - to suspend those file-sharers' internet access, seize any cuddly toys in their possession and put an exclusion zone between them and all arthropods.

The first bit of research came from one of the groups who support three-strikes, record label trade body the BPI. Their researchers Ovum reckon that if the six biggest internet service providers were to launch internet packages that had a licensed digital music service bundled in this year, the extra revenue they could generate on an annual basis by 2013 would be £103 million, assuming there was a "medium adoption scenario", which is my favourite sort of scenario.

I'm not quite sure how they figured that out, but obviously the point is that the ISPs, who oppose three-strikes, and who complain about having to contribute to the cost of running any new anti-piracy systems, have something to directly gain from the legit digital music market expanding which, the BPI would argue, is only possible if the provisions in the DEB become law.

Commenting on the report, BPI top man Geoff Taylor told CMU: "It's increasingly clear that it isn't smart [for an ISP to just] be a 'dumb pipe'. This report shows that the revenue potential of digital music services alone makes sound economic sense for ISPs. UK music companies want to innovate and develop exciting new digital offerings. ISPs such as Virgin Media have recognised that legal digital music services offer a more exciting and profitable future than continued widespread piracy".

Of course, the idea that ISPs help content owners police piracy in return for the two parties collaborating on new services, bundled into ISP packages, and on which the net firms can earn, has been around for several years now, and was the basis for voluntary talks between the two industries before three-strikes legislation was on the agenda. Virgin Media have been most proactive in pursuing this option, though their aim to launch an allyoucaneat MP3 service as part of their ISP package never got off the ground because all the majors except Universal Music weren't too keen on the proposition.

The ISPs would probably argue that they are more than willing to form content partnerships with the music industry, but that the financial terms previously offered aren't acceptable, especially when bundled in with piracy policing demands. And it has to be said, any digital music service set up by an ISP would probably be awful.

The other body publishing research this week is consumer rights group Consumer Focus, who generally oppose measures that could result in consumers having their net connections suspended.

Their study says that, while an increasing number of licensed digital music services are now available for those trying to move away from dodgy file-sharing, awareness of those services among the masses is pretty low. Even a much reported on service like Spotify has a relatively low profile among the masses, the consumer rights group says.

Consumer Focus says that more work must be done to promote legal services before any three-strikes style suspensions begin. Their boss Jill Johnstone told CMU: "The music industry is shooting itself in the foot by not promoting legal online music services. If file-sharing is causing the damage the music industry claims, why aren't they putting more effort in to promoting the legal alternatives? Before we go down the enforcement road it is only fair to ask the music industry to do more to make people aware of the legal options".

One of the issues, of course, is that since the original dot com boom most digital services have generally employed viral and word of mouth marketing to build user-bases rather than the sort of big budget ad campaigns which would reach mainstream consumers - therefore services which have a very high profile among early adopters are still a mystery to many.

The boss of one London-based legit music service, We7's Steve Purdham, agrees that this trend has had an impact on public awareness for licensed platforms, while adding that services like his prefer the sort of steady growth word of mouth delivers because it helps them keep better control of their user base, which can't grow too rapidly because of the costs of providing licensed music streams. He told CMU: "We7 has grown from zero to three million monthly UK users primarily by word of mouth. There is a significant reason [why we prefer that method] - the cost of providing the music can be significant. Ensuring growth keeps in pace with sales or funding is critical for a legal service".

Given the digital service providers often opt for 'below-the-line' marketing, does that mean the music industry should be funding a more high profile 'these are legit' campaign? Purdham, perhaps unsurprisingly, thinks so. He continued: "I think the biggest activity for the majors, government and music streaming services is to heavily promote the legal partners, such as We7, Last.fm and 7Digital, and drive that educational message home. We7 lets people have music for free with ads or a small monthly fee if they don't want ads. The best way to destroy piracy is to promote the legal services more aggressively".

Always keen to do its bit, CMU is currently putting together a list of all the licensed digital music services operating in the UK. It's very much a work in progress, but if you know about these things (or run a service) and can think of any legit services we are not currently listing, then drop us an email. You can see our work so far on this at www.legalmusicservices.co.uk.

Mark Linkous, aka Sparklehorse, has committed suicide, a spokesman confirmed to Rolling Stone magazine this weekend. He was 47. His manager told reporters yesterday that he had shot himself in the heart in an alleyway next to a friend's house in Knoxville, Tennessee on Saturday afternoon. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Linkous began performing as Sparklehorse in 1995, having previously been a founder member of eighties indie band Dancing Hoods, before undertaking a number of solo projects using his own name. There were four Sparklehorse albums in total, projects resulting in numerous collaborations which saw Linkous work with the likes of Tom Waits, PJ Harvey, Vic Chesnutt, Nina Persson, Dave Fridmann, Christian Fennesz and Danger Mouse.

His hook up with the latter on the fourth Sparklehorse album, 'Dreamt For Light Years In The Belly Of A Mountain', led to last year's 'Dark Night Of The Soul', a multi-media project also involving director David Lynch, which never got a full release because of legal issues with EMI. Those issues have only just been resolved, and the full album is now due to be released later this year. As well as collaborating with other producers, Linkous also sometimes took that role himself on other artists' projects, in particular producing an album by Nina Persson and collaborating with Daniel Johnston. A new Sparklehorse album was also reportedly close to completion prior to his death.

Linkous had a near-death experience in 1996 while supporting Radiohead. He overdosed on valium, alcohol and antidepressants in a London hotel, and his heart stopped for a few minutes during that incident. In the fourteen hours he lay unconscious, the blood supply to his legs was cut off, almost resulting in the loss of both limbs and leaving him wheelchair bound for six months. Some commentators said they felt the subsequent and somewhat sombre 1998 Sparklehorse album 'Good Morning Spider' had been influenced by that experience, though Linkous always said much of the long player had been written before the overdose.

A statement from Linkous' family issued via the Sparkklehorse website this weekend read: "It is with great sadness that we share the news that our dear friend and family member, Mark Linkous, took his own life today. We are thankful for his time with us and will hold him forever in our hearts. May his journey be peaceful, happy and free. There's a heaven and there's a star for you".

He is survived by his wife, Teresa, his mother, Gloria Hughes Thacker, his father, Frederick Linkous; and his brothers, Matt, Paul and Daniel Linkous.

Speculation remains as to whether the slightly controversial Digital Economy Bill will make it onto the statute book before parliament is dissolved for the General Election. The copyright section of this Bill, of course, introduces a three-strikes system for combating illegal file-sharing into UK law and, as of last week, formalises the powers of the High Court to shut down websites which are guilty of widespread copyright infringement.

The Bill has begun in the House Of Lords, and is expected to be passed by that chamber this week. Of course once passed by the Lords, it is always easier for the government to force legislation through the House Of Commons where they automatically have the majority vote. However, with the Tories opposing some aspects of the Bill (though not really the copyright section), opposition MPs might try to do everything they can to ensure the proposed legislation isn't approved before Election time.

That said, the Media Guardian reports that some senior media industry types have said they are still confident the Bill will get through parliament in time, with some speculating that the government may drop the bit most strongly opposed by the Tories - proposals for a new way of providing local news on ITV - in order to get approval for the rest of the Bill during the "wash up", the period of wheeling and dealing that goes on in parliament ahead of an uncertain election in which the government tries to get as much of its outstanding legislative proposals on the statute book before they are shown the door. 

The Guardian quote one media insider who says he is impressed with the speed in which the proposals - which cover a wide range of issues and topics - have got to the final stage in the Lords, adding: "The government deserves credit for pushing through a proposal that is not a vote-winner. They recognise that the creative industries are a huge asset for the country".

Much of the music industry, of course, supports the copyright section of the Bill, and some industry groups have been fiercely lobbying for three-strikes and website shutting injunctions for some time. That said, not the whole music industry is completely on board. Many in the artist, producer, songwriter and management communities still have big reservations about the introduction of what are perceived by many as overly draconian laws, especially as many are convinced said laws won't actually make much of a difference in the fight against piracy.

Given how the emotions have been flowing in the music community since the announcement that the BBC's digital station 6music faces closure, I think it's fair to say the industry still considers radio as an important platform for showcasing new and alternative music, and that there are too few radio stations and programmes providing that platform, both within the BBC and the commercial sector.

But, in the Spotify and Last.fm era, is music radio still the important platform for breaking new talent that it used to be? If so, is there a commercial model for radio services that champion new and alternative music and, if not, what are the obligations of the BBC in this domain? Or does the future of music discovery lie on the internet, and if so, do the killer discovery platforms already exist, or should the radio and web sectors be combining their skills to create that platform? And what does all of this mean for new bands trying to reach a wider audience in 2010?

Questions, questions. Well, people, we'll be endeavouring to provide you with some answers, because CMU Daily readers have voted the music radio issue as the one they want discussed in the CMU session of this year's Liverpool Sound City in May. And that debate will occur just before the BBC Trust ends its consultation on the recommendations that 6music and the Asian Network be closed.

CMU Publisher Chris Cooke says this: "Perhaps the news of 6music's pending demise rallied the vote for this topic to be the focus of CMU's panel a Sound City this year, though the music and radio industries have always been intrinsically linked, and the role of the latter as a platform for championing the new talent being fostered by the former has been a hot topic for some years. I think some in the music industry ultimately feel radio's key role in music discovery will be replaced by the internet, though the reaction to BBC 6's closure among the music community shows that, for now at least, radio remains important. I look forward to debating with key players in the radio, digital music and record industries on where they see the future of music discovery heading".

Sound City Director Dave Pichilingi added: "The response to the CMU Sound City panel picker has been phenomenal. In light of everything that is going on at the BBC, the choice of subject is quite apt. The Liverpool Sound City conference is all about challenging and confronting the big issues - we only truly move forward if we do this. This panel will certainly be one that gets the temperatures in the room rising!"

For more information about this year's Sound City, and details on how to book tickets, get your web browser tuned into this station: www.liverpoolsoundcity.co.uk

Gang Gang Dance have said they wish Florence Welch had given them earlier credit for the bit of their music sampled in her And The Machine hit 'Rabbit Heart (Raise It Up)'.

As previously reported, the New York experimentalists recently accused Florence and her record label of plagiarism after hearing the 'Rabbit Heart' for the first time. Welch's label and publisher quickly acknowledged that the Gang Gang Dance track 'House Jam' was sampled in the opening of the Flo hit, apologised for not previously crediting them, and agreed to a royalties settlement. Welch then said she was big fan of the New York outfit, and that the use of the sample was a tribute to them, and that she had never made any secret of the fact the 'House Jam' snippet had been used.

Gang Gang Dance singer Liz Bougatsos has now told 6music that she wishes such comments had come from Flo directly to the band much sooner. She told the BBC station: "If she [Welch] would have mentioned it in the beginning, in the press, which we never saw, that would have definitely made a difference. And if she was speaking of 'an homage' at that point, that would have helped as well".

But the singer admitted that her anger towards Flo and the song theft has cooled since a settlement was reached. She continued: "I'm happy now for sure. I think I was annoyed in the beginning because other people's reactions were affecting the way I was thinking about it - it's not a natural way for me to come out at somebody. I hope there's no hard feelings".

The Internet Service Providers Association yesterday called the latest amendment to the Digital Economy Bill a "fucking disgrace". Well, they actually said they were outraged and that "the many associated legal, technical and practical issues [of this provision] have simply not been debated in nearly enough depth; for a policy of such gravity, this is negligent".

As previously reported, the controversial Clause 17 that would give future ministers the power to introduce new anti-piracy systems without going through the full parliamentary process was dropped this week, to be replaced by a Lib Dems proposal that the High Court be able to issue injunctions to close down websites that primarily exist to infringe copyright. Such injunctions would basically force the ISPs to block access to offending websites. In theory, such injunctions can be applied for under existing UK copyright laws, though the new provision would formalise the process, and, the ISPA says, tip the balance of power too far in the content owner's favour.

The outraged net firms' trade body continued: "This amendment is misjudged and disproportionate and this Bill is a wholly inappropriate place to introduce this debate. ISPA is particularly disappointed that the Lords supporting this amendment drew parallels with the model of network-level blocking administered by the Internet Watch Foundation. The suggestion that a framework developed to fight against the distribution of criminal images of child sexual abuse is appropriate to tackle allegations of civil copyright infringement is incomprehensible".

Needless to say, record label trade body the BPI thought the new amendment was groovy, groovy, uber-cool. In fact, everyone who works there had a jam tart to celebrate. Their original support for Clause 17 (support which was controversial and, in part, motivated Pure Mint Recordings chief Anthony Hall to quit the body's Rights Committee) was based on the fear that while the DEB's three-strikes proposals potentially deal with the P2P file-sharing problem, they don't help with other forms of online piracy, which are arguably on the rise. The BPI feel that the strengthened injunctions proposition will overcome that issue, without the need for the rather vague Clause 17. 

Between bites of his jam tart, a BPI spokesman told Music Week: "We are pleased that parliament have recognised that legislation to tackle non-peer-to-peer piracy needs to be as robust as that planned to limit peer-to-peer. Rights holders will continue the dialogue with government and opposition to ensure that the final Bill allows new digital markets to flourish".

You know what all this makes me think about? That a jam tart would be nice with my post-Daily coffee. Mmmmmmmmmmmm.

The BBC's chief Pepsi expert and radio boss Tim Davie has defended the Beeb's controversial decision to axe the Asian Network and 6music.

Davie, who became head of BBC Audio & Music in 2008 bringing, erm, zero seconds of experience in radio and music to the table, has blogged about the cutback plans amid mounting opposition to the proposals, especially in relation to music service 6. Davie argues that, while he loves the two services that are facing closure, it is right for the Beeb to focus its radio resources into making a smaller number of stations more brilliant, rather than spreading it out to nine national stations, two of which have only small audiences.

He blogged yesterday: "I do not believe that offering the current range of nine stand-alone digital networks is the right way to serve audiences and ensure radio remains strong in a digital world. And, while digital radio has seen growth, my concern is that current development remains slow. So we are proposing to reduce the number of stations and re-invest in our five core networks - Radios 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Live - and extensions of these services, while maintaining our overall investment in digital radio to use in a range of innovative ways to provide listeners with great digital content".

He continues: "But this strategy of focusing efforts on doing fewer things better also means difficult decisions. Clearly we didn't arrive lightly at the decision to recommend the closure of 6music: it is distinctive, much loved and I too am passionate about its output. But I believe the best way for us to provide that kind of programming is by looking at other ways to find it a bigger audience. While we are re-focussing on fewer networks, we will consider how the range of music played on Radio 1, Radio 2 and Radio 3 should adjust to ensure we continue to offer a diverse spectrum of new and UK music as part of our stronger focus on originality and distinctiveness".

Of course, as someone or other I was reading about the other day said, the BBC is in a very tricky position, because while key players in the political community are constantly calling on the Corporation to make cuts, there will be vocal groups who speak out in support of any service or programmes that are axed in order to streamline the Corporation. And even those of us in the 'save 6' camp must recognise that the high volume of the support being heard for that particular station this week is in part aided by the fact some of its most passionate supporters work in the media, or are active Twitter users.

But then again, my two main problems with the BBC cuts proposals remain, and nothing Davie or his boss Mark 'Tommo' Thompson has said have addressed these two points.

First, both Davie and Tommo justify cutting services like 6 so that they can improve "quality" elsewhere in the Corporation's output. This is a clever rouse, because it's a justification that sounds good but means nothing. It also assumes that you get better quality TV and radio programmes when you spend more money.

While it's true that there is a minimum amount of money you need to spend to get good content (a minimum many commercial radio stations don't provide their programmes any more), the vast majority of BBC Radio's national shows are over-funded and over-staffed, with Radio 1 and Radio 2 the most guilty in this regard. Pumping more money into these stations will just mean they become even more over-funded, not that the quality of programming will improve.

Second, the aim of these cuts is primarily to placate critics in the commercial sector. Those commercial critics complain because Radios 1 and 2 - which compete with their stations - have an unfair competitive advantage because of the vast over-spending and over-staffing that goes on. The proposals of Davie, Tommo and John Tate, who wrote the cuts document, will actually make this imbalance worse and piss off the commercial radio sector even more.

While it can be a good thing to bring in expertise from outside the media into broadcasting companies, to ensure alternative thinking at the top, you get the impression here that the fact Davie, a former fizzy drink seller, and Tate, a former Tory Party twonk, know little about making good radio is in part behind such a misguided strategy being employed. Tommo is a former programme maker, but has his heart in TV not radio, and certainly not music.

So yes, us 6 fans are emotionally attached to a minority interest station, and we are using our media connections to kick up a bigger fuss than our number should probably allow. But CMU's problems with the plans to axe 6 remain unemotional - Davie, Tommo and Tate are just employing bad strategy.