Hard-rock singer Lennon Murphy, who is being
sued by Yoko Ono for trademarking her first name—which is also the name of her band—has spoken out about the suit, and why she has the name she does: "My mother named me after 'John Lennon that wrote songs, painted, and baked bread with his son.' She named me for the man, not the pop star"—and this lawsuit, she claims, is not only tainting the memory of her mother, it's "demeaning the man that John Lennon was and will always be." (Also, as she points out, if she was really being confused with the ex-Beatle as much as the lawsuit implies, she would have a
lot more money—presumably enough to at least make the $50k she needs to get a lawyer to fight Ono in court seem like not as big of a deal as it clearly is to her. Which, whether you agree with Ono or not, is kind of a salient point, especially when you realize that Lennon's estate rakes in about $25 million a year. Look at the photo: It's not like we're talking about Gallagher/Gallagher II level-confusion here, you know?) Lennon's full statement, taken from her drowning-in-traffic
Web site, after the jump.
More »
Idolator
MP3Tunes CEO Michael Robertson sent out an e-mail to users yesterday asking them to rise up and complain about EMI's lawsuit against the company, which centers around—what else?—copyright infringement. EMI is suing MP3Tunes because in its eyes, third-party storage of digital-music files goes against copyright law because of the possibility of other people accessing the files online; MP3Tunes, for its part, says that its 125,000 users only use the service for personal backups and being able to listen to their music collections on the go. Something tells me that the real truth lies somewhere within the gray area between those two points, albeit closer to MP3Tunes' side because sharing passwords is a big pain in the rear. [
Matchbox Twenty recently canceled an upcoming appearance at the Cheyenne Frontier Days, explaining that they couldn't yell "I gaowt uh duhzeez!" while animals were being abused at the popular Wyoming Rodeo. The company has struck back with a lawsuit, saying this is costing them a hundred grand. Thing is, it's not the sensitive adult contemporary icons getting sued. Instead, the event's booking company is suing the animal rights organization SHARK for inspiring the band to drop out. Romeo Entertainment claims that SHARK used "false and misleading information" and "threats of negative publicity" to scare the band, and that they did the same with Carrie Underwood in 2006. (I guess nobody gave a shit about the lil' dogies in 2007.) But can you legally keep a protest group from contacting performers?
More »
